Election spoken of in scripture...like this-

You might want to change theologies then, because the undistorted context clearly shows that it was his perception of his opposition’s conclusions.

It wasn’t a correction it was misrepresentation of what was said. You should probably be more honest or read more carefully, so as not to totally ruin your credibility with senseless rhetoric. :Cautious

 

Do you remember those cartoons where the large person holds the little person with His hand on his head at arms length.....and the little person keeps swinging but cannot reach and never connects....he flails away and can never reach the target???? I think of that when I read your random ideas which are devoid of any scriptural basis....
If the day comes when you are allowed to welcome these scriptural truths that would be a time of joy and rejoicing even more so then the happy father's day rejoicing.

 

Benjamin,
Try working on the scripture themselves. ..these articles are basic.
I would not write it quite the same way...nevertheless it gets the discussion going even more if we use scriptures other than the two or three you repeat.
ELECTION OF INDIVIDUALS.....is what is front and center.
In the other thread on election...posts 80,82,83...deal directly with the topic....try interacting with that clear teaching..I can import it here if that would help

 

That entirely depends on your construct of just why God chose to not save a sinner. If it's for the reason that Calvinists say that the unsaved didn't even have a chance or a choice then I'd say NO. Love, Fairness and Justice all go hand in hand. You might say that God saves some people so isn't he showing love? The would mean that God wasn't ALL LOVE but only partially. Scripture states, "God is LOVE" not that he has some love. 1 John 4:8

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 1 John 4:8

 

So when God led Israel with light but it was darkness to the Egyptians.....do you feel it was unfair??? Do you feel the need to cross examine God's wisdom until you approve of what he did...?

 

Zactly:

"for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand - Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

"For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

 

Well I'd ask do I mind putting up a defense for God's character as being good, fair and just which in all sincerity I feel Calvinists seek to diminish then I'd have to say yes. God did not do what you claim he did and continues to do....send people to hell with not having had any chance in the slightest to have it anyway different.

 

Individual election in a corporate setting of being IN CHRIST.

I’d think Cs would get tired of barking out this proof-text which is meant to teach the opposite of what Cs try to present. In context, Paul is addressing the Jewish error of their notion that all sons of Abraham are saved because of their inheritance of having the law, Paul is telling them their belief of pre-selection is false and that they need Christ! Unfortunately the Cs just don’t get it and are trying to hold on to the same old Jewish stronghold of resistance, holding on to their predetermined “rights” under the law which Paul is rebuking.

The Cs just want to stop at their systemic interpretations but fail to see the bigger picture:

The C perception of predestined sonship fails along the same lines as did the Jew’s perception of Abrahamic sonship and they don’t realize there is a new system in town:

Mat 3:9-10

(9) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

(10) And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

The teaching about Jacob and Esau came long after their death, you won’t even find God saying He hated Esau in Genesis because it’s not there – for a reason, the doctrines of unconditionally predestination because of being physical predestined descendants of Abraham, the same type of beliefs of the Cs wherein they miss the big picture are being put to rest by Paul. Election is only IN Christ and the C view of individual predestination is being revealed, for those with eyes to see, as not being the way to salvation.

It really does seem sometimes that the Cs are jealous about salvation just like the Jews, who fell into the false teachings of privileged predestination, were:

Rom 11:11

(11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

The Jews wanted a Law that they could rule by, rather than a God that they must believe in, in similar fashion the Cs seem to want no choice in the matter and say they are unable to respond in belief unless predestined to do so.

The Cs serious need to understand that the opposite of God’s love would be not love. But God both hates sinners, and loves them. He is set against them in judgment but in love does not desire to destroy them. It is a truth that God has provided for election IN Christ for all. That is the true message of the Gospel of grace. May God forgive those who would preach His love and grace is limited to a specially privileged pre-selected few.

 

Not. Those passages clearly convey 'individual election' along with many others.

Are Paul's writings inspired or not?

 

Great argument! Not.

Of course they are. They just don't mean what you think they do as per my argument which seemed to go right over your head. Rather foolish question considering its intent.

 

Great argument! Not!

 

Because they don't belong to Him. Matthew 13:36-42. Note the absence of any 'commission' to evangelize the tares. Matthew 15:13. Note that these are 'individual plants'.

 

Yes not belonging to him but such will be defined at the end of time. Didn't mean they weren't given an opportunity to receive.And no commission to evangelize all? Really? Well what's this about then? Not obvious that they weren't to share the gospel to ALL?

And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Matt 10:14

Seems to me they were called to preach the gospel to every creature.

 

Is God allowed then to have mercy upon whosoever He chooses to or not?

 

Seems to me you should reread the account:

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:
6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 10

Every creature? Not!

 

...that commission was confined for then, because the calling on the Gentiles and Samaritans was deferred until a later date. To read into that that the Gospel was not for every creature at all is a gross misinterpretation.

 

The gospel message is to be given forth to all, and those whom the Lord have enabled to respond shall indeed turn to Jesus and be saved.

 

Determinism on the brain, much? Oh, I see, the Gospel is given to all, but only some can genuinely respond, so IOWs the Gospel is not a genuine promise to all it is given... :Sneaky:rolleyes:

 

The problem lies not with God in our response, but within ourselves....

 

So human volition is an attribute of the creature?

BTW, your previous response did not address the misinterpretation I pointed out. Not really interested in chasing your rabbits. ;)