Featured Individual Election Revisited

Typical calvie response.

WHY was it commanded, IF IT DOESN'T CHANGE anything?

And the verse saya what it says. "All" means ALL. There's no "all if pre-elected" in that verse or any other one.

 

Van vision makes things up as it goes along

 

That's not what the verse says.

 

Ask God why He commanded it. All does mean all, but you have to see what the all is referencing and it is CLEARLY the elect in that passage. Any is referencing the you, and who are the you? The beloved. The elect. The saved. He is not willing that any of the elect should perish.

 

I think you need to read back through the thread, you definitely implied it because you started talking about someone has to be unwilling before they are dragged. That supports my position, not yours.

 

This is completely false and has been shown false by the large volume of posts on the BB showing the vast amount of scripture provided to show you are wrong. This is precisely why you fall upon your Calvinism lie as your escape hatch from your false doctrine.

 

The idea that we do not address the doctrine is ridiculous. How many times have I pointed out Ephesians 1:4? How many times have I pointed out the ENTIRE GOSPEL OF JOHN? How many times have I pointed out Romans 3, 8, 9, and 11? How many times have I pointed out the taking of verses, such as 2 Peter 3:9, out of context? Many, many times.

 

Not at all. I shared Matthew 23 with you and everyone else rather than make a poor claim regarding one verse like you did...and you didn't even quote the verse.
I let the reader decide what Matthew is saying in the 23rd chapter as we read about the many prophetic woes Jesus places upon the religious leaders in Israel. Prophetic word that came true.

 

Correct. The passages in 2 Peter that I quoted show this to absolutely be the correct understanding. Only someone who ignores the entire letter and takes one sentence out of context could create a different interpretation. It amazes me how terrible the hermeneutics are of some posters here at the BB.

 

I don't think it was a mis-quotation.
If you look at the first post carefully, I believe that he was interacting with the text of it, and inserting his own observations within the body of it.

 

Simple yes; fair no. There are some questions that do not lend themselves to yes or no answers. I did not tell you how to ask your question; you do not get to tell me how to answer it.

Before time began, before the foundation of the world, God saw me, set His love upon me, chose me and gave me to Christ to redeem (John 6:39). In the mind of God, 'who works all things after the counsel of His will,' I was in Christ at that point in the same way that I am even now seated in the heavenly places even though I am still here on earth.
But I was not actually 'in Christ' until such time as God gave me grace to repent and believe.

 

To me, Scripture is not ambiguous Van.

I didn't feel the need to "rebut" you, as I don't come here to debate, sir.

What I did was answer your comments with pertinent sections of God's word.

I respect that that is how you see it.
I also happen to disagree with you.

"From the foundation of the world" is exactly the same as Ephesians 1:4 states...
"Before the foundation of the world".

To me ( at least in many cases ), they are one and the same.

 

Van,
That has been done many times.

Many times God's word has been presented, and many times threads like this devolve into attack and counter-attack.
The bashing usually doesn't start until one side ( or the other ) starts it, and then it tends to spiral upwards.

Yet, people have indeed carefully presented the Scriptures and addressed doctrine;
Which you have rejected ( and that is your prerogative ).

But I myself have not bashed you in any way that I know of.

 

From is as in Luke 11:50.
Before is before God made man.

 

Van?
Would you please stop characterizing those who disagree with you as "bullies", and then behaving badly towards those who disagree with you, yourself?

Characterizing your fellow man in such ways ( with terms like "absurd", "mindless twaddle", etc ) is not in accordance with His commands to do good to all,
especially those of the household of faith, nor is it loving one's neighbor.
Would you agree?
I hope so.

As for you "Calvinists" here, I would hope that you would be mindful of these things as well.

Gentlemen ( and any ladies reading this thread ),
We are grown men and women, and we should behave as such.
Furthermore,
Some of the comments I've seen from several here on this thread ( and many other threads that deal with this subject ) are not in keeping with what is spelled out in His word regarding Christian conduct.

Van does not deserve any insults from those who disagree with him,
any more than those who disagree with him do from him.