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

So far, I think the lifeguard analogy of @PaulThomson seems pretty good. See my post #9967 for my

It won't do any good, but just to add to the record, your theory of Adam & Eve is not shared by many. It's not much of a foundation to build upon.

What? Those who have been regenerated to have been given a new heart and the ability to read scripture and discern what it truly teaches disagree in house among themselves over what it teaches. And yet they are sure they are correct in their understanding when it conflicts with the understanding of those outside of the house? How can that be?

Gen 26 states the reason why God chose Abraham but the text doesn't address the unconditional nature of the promises that God made with Abraham.

I really don't want to get off on a tangent with the Abrahamic Covenant (even though it sets the precedent for the unilateral NC), but it's really easy for anyone with spiritual eyes to see what kind of Covenant it was. In fact, I'll let you tell me: In Gen 15, who ratified the covenant: God, Abraham or both? Likewise, for the New Covenant who ratified it: Christ, his disciples, the entire world for whom he is the Savior and for whom he allegedly died, or all the aforementioned? How you answer this question determines the nature of both covenants.

It seems it's only people who have their own personal, worldly, fleshly theological agendas who are most inclined to represent key theological issues as being far more complicated than they are, and then appeal to the "great debates" throughout Church history in an attempt to support their primary premise, and then conclude it's really tough to be dogmatic on those issue. How convenient.

You see, if you had paid careful attention to what I wrote in my Exodus typology exposition, I pointed out when the Israelities finally had their spiritual HA, HA moment --when they finally woke up from their sleep of death! But you were too dull to understand, even though I went out of my way to draw attention to Moses' concluding remarks about the Exodus out of Egypt, the truth did not resonate in your heart, did it?

Moreover, it not only took the climatic, incredible miracle of the parting of the sea, but we know that God performed numerous other signs and wonders prior to that point. The moral to the story is that God's supernatural power (i.e. Effectual Grace) clearly preceded the people's faith in Him and in Moses. AND...the Fear of the Lord also preceded their trust in both God and Moses. Wow! Fear of the Lord! Didn't we just study that theme in the Wisdom Books and see that this divine GIFT is the precursor to knowledge, wisdom and understanding? And isn't this gift also promised in the New Covenant to God's chosen, covenant people (not to be confused or conflated with the world)?

Do you still need to have more dots connected for you?

So far, I think the lifeguard analogy of @PaulThomson seems pretty good. See my post #9967 for my



It won't do any good, but just to add to the record, your theory of Adam & Eve is not shared by many. It's not much of a foundation to build upon.



NKJ 1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,



NKJ John 17:20-23 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

• The bold underlined are purpose clauses. Jesus' prayer in those clauses is for the world.
• The first underlined portion is for future believers which follows Jesus' statement about then current believers.
• The way I read all this, it conforms very nicely to 1Tim4:10 and all the Scriptures in my above linked for your convenience post that compare to 1Tim4:10.

Must have something to do with God's Plan for human history and why Jesus has not appeared to the whole world since His ascension and session. There is also Jesus' blessing like this one:

NAS John 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."



See 1Tim2:5-6 & others in my above linked for your convenience #9967 a other Scriptures that have been referenced for you in this thread re: Unlimited Atonement.

The discussion re: unilateral vs. bilateral, unconditional vs. conditional covenants has just begun. @PaulThomson for one has already provided some Scriptures re: the condition of Faith. Without speaking for him, my assumption is that he is anxiously awaiting as I am to see how you reason the distinct separation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the New Covenant Mediator from the New Covenant He implemented.

The lengths some will eisegete to protect a TULIP...

So far, I think the lifeguard analogy of @PaulThomson seems pretty good. See my post #9967 for my



It won't do any good, but just to add to the record, your theory of Adam & Eve is not shared by many. It's not much of a foundation to build upon.



NKJ 1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,



NKJ John 17:20-23 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

• The bold underlined are purpose clauses. Jesus' prayer in those clauses is for the world.
• The first underlined portion is for future believers which follows Jesus' statement about then current believers.
• The way I read all this, it conforms very nicely to 1Tim4:10 and all the Scriptures in my above linked for your convenience post that compare to 1Tim4:10.

Must have something to do with God's Plan for human history and why Jesus has not appeared to the whole world since His ascension and session. There is also Jesus' blessing like this one:

NAS John 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."



See 1Tim2:5-6 & others in my above linked for your convenience #9967 a other Scriptures that have been referenced for you in this thread re: Unlimited Atonement.

The discussion re: unilateral vs. bilateral, unconditional vs. conditional covenants has just begun. @PaulThomson for one has already provided some Scriptures re: the condition of Faith. Without speaking for him, my assumption is that he is anxiously awaiting as I am to see how you reason the distinct separation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the New Covenant Mediator from the New Covenant He implemented.

The lengths some will eisegete to protect a TULIP...

How many dead people floating in the water did the lifeguard save?

You see...this is a major reason I strongly favor my inerpretation of 1Tim4:10: It presents zero problems with the rest of the bible

How many dead people floating in the water did the lifeguard save?

How many dead people floating in the water did the lifeguard save?

All but eight drowned... but they were not in the water... they were on it, and protected from it.

None that had rejected the help he provided to all.

I was thinking along similar lines. Or what happens when more than one person is drowning in the zone of a lifeguard's chair or station? Who does the lifeguard go to first?

Your example is dealing with living people. Jesus is working with dead men.

I wonder why the omniscient God chose such a man to make such a covenant with and then put such a causal clause in His Word. I guess we can just ignore it.



You brought up the Abrahamic Covenant. I'm aware of the way unilateral vs. bilateral covenants are identified. I'm also aware of things I don't ignore, such as the faith, obedience and faithfulness of Abraham and the causal clause in Geb26:5. IOW, as I said before, IMO there is more to this conditional vs. unconditional matter than is typically discussed. We're dealing with God and I try not to overlook Scriptures that are inconvenient for our interpretations of His Word. I've even seen men explaining terms like "unconditional" in different ways in an attempt to conform their thinking with Scripture. I'll determine how and when I answer any of your questions.



Cuts both ways. I've also seen some use phrases like "easy peasy" to suggest their erroneous interpretations are childishly simple.



Unfortunately, much of your typology is inane and ignores points of Scripture as did some of your Ex analogy I did read. And once again, we're having to go through a lengthy narrative of yours to simply get to discussing Scripture, which is your weak point. So much for a respectful request for some brevity.



And the point of your once again inane methodology is to jump from all men having the knowledge of God to some theoretical requirement of all men to have wisdom in order to understand that knowledge and "understanding" and experiential knowledge God made certain that every man has and "understands." The reason you make such leaps is because you are not analyzing Hebrew and Greek words to connect dots correctly. When I work at connecting dots, I use more precision than you do and am able to see when you are missing the dots and making up your own abstract drawing.

Once again, do you have ANY Scripture you can use to make any of your points? If not, then I'll just consider this another one of your paths to ramble on with misconceived and lengthy narratives. You don't need me or anybody else to cooperate in this. I've read the more concise arguments on the matter from Reformed men who use Scripture to explain their reasoning. You've not even entered into the debate let alone made any points about it.

No problem for the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Lifeguard.

But a very big problem for the lifeguard that forms the basis to the analogy.

But a very big problem for the lifeguard that forms the basis to the analogy.

The so-called spiritually dead have not crossed the void and can go from life to Life.

Hmm...

They can go from physical life to physical death to physical life, but breath will have to be put back in him or her by someone else in order to be saved.
Spiritually, we're all floaters. We have to be resuscitated from the get-go.
The lifeguard example doesn't fit reality.