Adam's Fall = Total Depravity? ; Hardened = Non-Elect?

I didn't say He elected to save the nation of Nineveh. I said he elected for them to receive God's revelation. This is the same type of election of Israel. They weren't elected to be saved (otherwise they all would have been saved), they were elected to receive God's special revelation so they "might see, hear, understand and believe." The messengers are individually chosen to take the message and God will use the necessary means to convince them to do this (burning bush, blinding light, big fish - all of which seem unnecessary in a system where the 'effectual call' of God is being employed)

Read Adam Clarke commentary on Eph 1, these posts are getting too long to try and answer every passage. If you have a specific question about it let me know.

And as I have explained, the interpretation of this passage depends on the perspective with which you approach it. Does it mean as you suggest, "I will have mercy on individuals who I have chosen to have mercy." Or does it mean, "I will have mercy on all people (even the unclean Gentiles) by grafting them in the olive tree (i.e. sending the message of reconciliation by which they might see, hear, understand and repent.") Either way, by effectual application or mere invitation, God is showing mercy on whom he wills to show mercy. This verse doesn't settle our contention. Do you understand what I'm saying?

I never said all the people were leaders. Please, please, please, try to understand my perspective even if you don't agree with it. Israel was the elect nation of God in that they were chosen to receive His divine revelation. Therefore, up to this point in history everyone thought that by simply being a descendant of Abraham that made you "people of God." You and I both agree that Paul is debunking that claim.

Actually they come from chapter 9, 10 and 11, so now I wonder if you have studied the flow. Let's not insult each other by suggesting the other hasn't studied it. We are debating from different perspectives. I want you to understand my perspective, which I've not seen evidence of as of yet.

Well, that would depend on if you understand election like a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist, wouldn't it? This is why I wonder if you understand my perspective. You are fine at stating your perspective, with which we are both aware, but when it comes to addressing our points of contention you always make statements as if you don't understand my perspective.

correct. (case and point)

We are not talking about mankind's initiative to seek after God, we are talking about man's ability to respond to a God actively seeking them. Jesus said, "I've come to seek and save that which is lost." Proving that you can't phone your friend is not proof that you can't answer the phone when your friend phones you. Understand?

Yes. We both agree that the "new race" is the race of believers, we differ on the means by which they become believers, so once again this doesn't address any of our points of contention and our posts get longer and longer.

CRYSTAL CLEAR!

 

Jarthur,

From the passage we are discussing, what do you believe the "Olive Tree" represents in Paul's analogy?