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

Late edit

"but for some reason, all those present simples in Romans 2 must mean "all the time". " should read,
"but for some reason, all those present simples in Romans 3 must mean "all the time".

I note that you have yet again avoided giving a definition of the word "saviour" that covers all cases of someone being a "saviour". Why should anyone take your opinions on soteriology seriously, when you cannot even define what the word "saviour" means in the English language.

I chose my words judiciously.

I read English as English. When someone says "Joe is and engineer" I do not assume it means "Joe will always be an engineer and always was an engineer," as if it applies to all times: past, present and future. However, people who import their theological biases into biblical statements, may well convince themselves that "one of you is a devil" means that one was always a devil and will always be one.

judas was the living embodiment of the wheat and the tares. He was one who moved about with the wheat, sat at the supper table with them, played out his part by betraying jesus, a “vessel fit for destruction” and just as a tare, planted by the wicked one, the seed being a tare and growing into a tare, a tare cannot become wheat. just as esau in tears sought after repentence, he could not find it.

You said they are only found when they repent. Why isn't it that they only repent when they are found?

I've asked you to give your definitions again and the place in scripture that corresponds to your definitions, or point me to the post.

Jesus came to find the lost sheep. A lost sheep will repent and will return to the fold when Jesus calls.
And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham; "for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

- Luke 19:9-10

PaulThomson said:
If you want me to chase you down your rabbit trails, let's first eat the carrot outside the hole.

If I am drowning and I cannot do enough to save myself, but a woman throws me a rope and I grab it, so that she can pull me into the safety of her boat, was she my saviour, in that context?

If a man is swimming to shore two miles out, and is quite capable of making the distance, and a helicopter drops a man in a harness, who grabs the swimmer and he is pulled up into the helicopter and delivered to the shore, did the helicopter crew save him?

From these two examples, can you give a general definition of "saviour" that fits all cases where someone is saved. You will see that I have earlier. And it is somewhat different from the LOUPI definition applied to the Bible to argue for LOUPI theology. Anyway, have a go at defining saviour that applies to all cases.

My definition of saviour -
A saviour is someone who rescues someone from some harm from which they cannot save themselves on their own.
I believe this definition will fit all the situations in which the word saviour is appropriate, both in scripture and outside scripture...

Now what's your definition that fits all uses?

Aren't perspectives something!? Mine is that I'm the Red Queen elaborating the "Stop that!"

Jesus himself equated the sheep being found in the parable to the sinner repenting. That means that the sinner is found at the same time as he repents, and repents at the same time as he is found. If they are found sometime before they repent, what do you think finding in the parable represents in reality? If they are found some time after they repent, what do you think finding in the parable represents in real life?

Who are you to judge another man's servant? Who made you Judas' judge? You never met Judas. You did not know him before, at or after the time Jesus called him. I'll leave his judgment to our Lord. I don't think I have seen anywhere in scripture that Judas was always a devil, only that he was a devil at the time Jesus identified him as being a devil. He may or may not have always been so, or always remained so.

Why is this sheep stuff so difficult?

Initially the lesson is that a sinning Israelite would recognize the Great Shepherd Messiah of Israel, repent of his sins, and follow Messiah the Great Shepherd. Those who didn't repent of their sins and follow Him were not His sheep. For whatever reasons, they preferred to remain where they were.

Sheep don't recognize ownership. They're instinctual and learn to trust someone who feeds and waters them, cares for them, protects them, shelters them. And they flock and follow leaders.

Who's to say from this lesson that those not of the sheepfold - Israel - are those who wandered in the world long enough with all its thieves and robbers and wolves - had and retained the knowledge of God consciousness that there was someone and something better - and came to recognize Him through His flock (heard His voice) since sheep are herd animals? Who's to say the younger sheep who grew up in the flock didn't just find herd comfort there, while some just liked sin better - some then return later - some do not.

My understanding: Judas was not a sheep.

Real question and not an argument: Do you think that the Potter creates any men for dishonor or that all men choose their own dishonor?

An example from the honorable (conversely) side: Could John the Baptist be anything other than what God said He would be?

I sometimes wonder if much of our arguing is simply because we put God in the box of our own simplistic sensitivities and don't just let Him explain Himself in all of what He says and does in His perfect essence.

If you should ask, yes, I'm familiar with the reasonings of His hardening some - familiar but not fully accepting that we understand it all.

Thanks for answering. I also asked where you see these definitions employed in scripture.

My point is, unless scripture uses your definition of savior, it still remains a definition but is not the definition employed in the scripture.

Both the examples you employ do describe a savior. Where do you find the application of these definitions in scripture? And why is it necessary that every definition of savior be met for every passage?

Biblically, the Savior is God. He alone has the power to undo the results of the fall. They are a rescue team, if you will...Father, Son, and Spirit. All contribute to the salvation of an individual. A good place to find this is Luke 15. Most concentrate on the story of the prodigal son. But notice, it doesn't say Jesus tells 3 parables. He actually tells a parable with 3 distinct parts. He is concerned to give a macro view of salvation.
The first part deals with aspects of Jesus' role in salvation. He is the good Shepherd who dies for the sheep. But that aspect isn't highlighted here. Instead, He is shown to be the One who actively seeks out the sheep, going to where they are and bringing them safely into the fold.
The second part of the parable finds a woman losing a coin. The house is lit and swept to find the coin. I believe this portion teaches of the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation. He comes and gives enlightenment and purification to the individual as a part of salvation.
And the third and most familiar part of the parable is a representation of the great love of the Father for the wayward sheep. In many ways it is a picture of the fall of Adam. He separates himself from God by sin, and God the Son brings him home, the Spirit cleans him up, and the Father welcomes him in restoration.

Even such an expansion parable as this does not consider every aspect of salvation, or what savior means. As I explained in a previous post, many biblical truths are too grand to be limited to a short explanation. Also, the Bible is written in such a manner as to conceal some things, and is meant to be searched out.

A purely Biblical analogy using the physical realm:

NKJ Luke 8:11-15:
11 "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12 "Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
13 "But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
14 "Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity.
15 "But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with/in a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience endurance.


All hear.

Some are attacked. get the Word lifted/removed from their hearts and thus don't believe.

Some believe the Word for awhile, when tested/tempted withdraw/revolt/change allegiance. This is a middle voice which is saying they do this with some self-interest/benefit in mind.

Some get choked out by worldly things and do not produce mature fruit. The verb is active voice, so they were to do the producing. Did they believe the Word? Probably, because their issue is that they went out [after at minimum hearing the Word] and were choked (BDAG Lexicon - to check the growth or well-being of something by pressure, choke; Louw-Nida Lexicon - (a) cause plants to die 23.120 (b) crowd around 19.48 (c) oppress 22.22) and did not produce.

And in some, what's a noble and good heart and how do they have such? Keep & endure are active voice verbs, so they are doing these things.

The timing is the same because that's when the Shepherd is doing His work of finding. But being found and repenting are not the same thing. One is necessary for the other.

Assumption from the parable in Luke 8: Some unbelievers have a "noble and good heart" and hear the Word (the Gospel) and retain it and produce fruit in/by endurance

NKJ Luke 6:45 "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

Observation: Jesus is speaking to a crowd of His disciples and a large multitude of people from around the region (Luke6:17). Jesus assumes there are good people among the fallen with good treasure in their hearts? Does this establish grounds for how we view His parable - His analogy - in Luke 8?

Did those "hormones" have a will that consciously decided they were going to create life?