Saved Or Predestined ???

[Tong2020]

Oh, good grief. Now you are just making stuff up. I never said any such thing. I guess you can't know what your refuse to see.

Follow the back links in this post and the post thereafter and you'll see what I am saying. Let me make it simple for you and I'll post where you started to be off track. Starting with Post # 1469, link: Saved Or Predestined ???

Tong:
In verses 1-5, Paul expressed his wish concerning his brethren in the flesh, that is, the Israelites, the people of the nation of Israel. By such, he had us understand that Israel, as a whole, rejected Jesus as the Messiah. And he there tells us about them in connection to God and the Christ. Nothing more.

Renniks:
No no, he doesn't just stop talking about Israel at verse five. Why do you think he's explaining all this about how God worked through Israel? Most of the chapter is about Israel. Read the conclusion to understand why...

Tong:
I was talking about what is in Romans 9:1-5. And here you are objecting to what I said in my post referring to the whole chapter, making it appear that I err? Such attitude. So tell us what else does the passage (v.1-5) say, more than what I said in my post sir?

Renniks:
If you don't understand that this is about Israel and the gentiles instead of about individual election, you will always misunderstand the entire chapter, and beyond. This is why Calvinist thinkers tend to totally skip the first five verses, and often the last few verses and only pull out the middle of the chapter, then make it about them. " You probably think this is about you, don't you, don't you?"

But it really isn't. Paul isn't talking to the reader when he says that" one of you will say to me.."
He's responding to someone rebelling against the idea that God is using thier sin to reach other people. And that someone surely isn't us. Why would a gentile be opposed to that?

Tong:
As I pointed out, in this part of the string of our exchanges, I was taking about Romans 9:1-5. I don't know why you objected to what I said about verses 1-5 which is and I quote "In verses 1-5, Paul expressed his wish concerning his brethren in the flesh, that is, the Israelites, the people of the nation of Israel. By such, he had us understand that Israel, as a whole, rejected Jesus as the Messiah. And he there tells us about them in connection to God and the Christ. Nothing more."

Renniks:
It's a lot more than that. He's setting up his whole argument by starting with Israel. Again if you don't get this, you will misunderstand the rest of the chapter. It's about Israel and the gentiles, not individual salvation. Until he gets to the point that salvation comes through faith, not works.

Tong:
Of course there's a lot more that Paul says in the rest of Romans 9, but said only what He said in verses 1-5. It's foolish to insist that Paul said what he said in verses 6-33 in verses 1-5.

Renniks:
Oh, good grief. Now you are just making stuff up. I never said any such thing. I guess you can't know what your refuse to see.

Tong
R0560

 

[Renniks]

You said "He had to trust God in order to agree to leave his homeland and follow Him!" Of course. Now, we learn from scriptures that Abram, at the time that God had spoken to him, belongs to a family of idolaters, who worshiped false gods. And then consider what is told to him by God, "Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you". That was not in any way, shape, or form easy to do, is it? More so for one who belong to a family who worship not the true God but false gods. So, needless to say, it cannot be dismissed that God could have had worked His way into Abram, into his mind and heart, that Abram was convicted, convinced and converted by God so that he, without question or hesitation, believed and obeyed. How he was moved to obedience is evidence of his having been given faith by God despite being a believer of false gods, as that is the only way that one like him could obey a seemingly impossible commandment such as that given to Abram by even an invisible God who is Spirit and whom be does not know and worship

This is just you imposing your determinism onto scripture. You can't have it both ways. Either Abraham had a choice and obeyed, or he was just God's robot, programmed to do exactly what God said.
I'll go with what scripture says instead of your pagan determinism.

8By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, without knowing where he was going.


9By faith he dwelt in the promised land as a stranger in a foreign country. He lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Obedience requires freedom of the will. Obedience requires that there was a real choice, not a pre-written script.
In your world, apparently there's no room for obedience. If God is doing everything, irresistibly imposing faith on some and withholding it from others, then we are all robots just playing our pre-determined roles. That's not even close to what the Bible teaches.

 

[Renniks]

When God had chosen Abram, God did not give him an offer he can't refuse. What we read in scriptures is just that as what is written in Genesis 12:1-3. God gave Abram commandment and promises. That's it. All other matters that comes after that is God's working out, with the end to make good, what He said to Abraham. Abraham, as also, then Isaac, Jacob (Israel), and Moses, do not in any way shape or form, have anything to do with the bringing about of what God had said to Abraham in Gen. 12:1-3. It is God who promised and it is God who will bring about His promises, and not any one else. So, no one gets to have credit nor said to have caused whatever promise of God that was fulfilled in any way shape or form.

Lol, seriously, read the faith chapter. If no one was ever commended for having faith and scripture taught that God just irresistibly imposes faith on people and withholds it from other people, well, you would have a leg to stand on. As it is, you are just adding your pagan determinism to the Bible.

 

[Renniks]

Follow the back links in this post and the post thereafter and you'll see what I am saying. Let me make it simple for you and I'll post where you started to be off track. Starting with Post # 1469, link: Saved Or Predestined ???

Tong:
In verses 1-5, Paul expressed his wish concerning his brethren in the flesh, that is, the Israelites, the people of the nation of Israel. By such, he had us understand that Israel, as a whole, rejected Jesus as the Messiah. And he there tells us about them in connection to God and the Christ. Nothing more.

Renniks:
No no, he doesn't just stop talking about Israel at verse five. Why do you think he's explaining all this about how God worked through Israel? Most of the chapter is about Israel. Read the conclusion to understand why...

Tong:
I was talking about what is in Romans 9:1-5. And here you are objecting to what I said in my post referring to the whole chapter, making it appear that I err? Such attitude. So tell us what else does the passage (v.1-5) say, more than what I said in my post sir?

Renniks:
If you don't understand that this is about Israel and the gentiles instead of about individual election, you will always misunderstand the entire chapter, and beyond. This is why Calvinist thinkers tend to totally skip the first five verses, and often the last few verses and only pull out the middle of the chapter, then make it about them. " You probably think this is about you, don't you, don't you?"

But it really isn't. Paul isn't talking to the reader when he says that" one of you will say to me.."
He's responding to someone rebelling against the idea that God is using thier sin to reach other people. And that someone surely isn't us. Why would a gentile be opposed to that?

Tong:
As I pointed out, in this part of the string of our exchanges, I was taking about Romans 9:1-5. I don't know why you objected to what I said about verses 1-5 which is and I quote "In verses 1-5, Paul expressed his wish concerning his brethren in the flesh, that is, the Israelites, the people of the nation of Israel. By such, he had us understand that Israel, as a whole, rejected Jesus as the Messiah. And he there tells us about them in connection to God and the Christ. Nothing more."

Renniks:
It's a lot more than that. He's setting up his whole argument by starting with Israel. Again if you don't get this, you will misunderstand the rest of the chapter. It's about Israel and the gentiles, not individual salvation. Until he gets to the point that salvation comes through faith, not works.

Tong:
Of course there's a lot more that Paul says in the rest of Romans 9, but said only what He said in verses 1-5. It's foolish to insist that Paul said what he said in verses 6-33 in verses 1-5.

Renniks:
Oh, good grief. Now you are just making stuff up. I never said any such thing. I guess you can't know what your refuse to see.

Tong
R0560

And? I certainly didn't say that " Paul said what he said in verses 6-33 in verses 1-5." That was totally your invention. I said that he was setting up his argument from the start of the chapter.

 

[Renniks]

@farouk, Let me share this verse to you in connection to your post which I think might be of help to you.

Romans 11:7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Within the corporately elected people of the nation of Israel, more commonly referred in the NT scriptures as the Jews, there are those elected individually by God, who together are called the elect. Paul in Romans 11, concerning Israel, refer to them as the remnant according to the election of grace.

Tong
R0557

Paul explains that there are a relatively small number of ethnic Israelites who have obtained righteousness. These are “the elect”. They correspond to the “remnant” from verse 5. Paul distinguishes “the elect” from “the rest”. “The rest” is everyone else in ethnic Israel who is not “the elect”.

But this lack of election is not a permanent situation.
The jews that are not elect, have had their eyes darkened so one might conclude that these non-elect ethnic Israelites will always remain in this state and will therefore never be saved.

However, let’s see what Paul has to say about this. Does Paul think that none of these non-elect ethnic Israelites will ever be saved? Let’s read through the rest of this section with only this question in mind:


[11] So I ask, did they [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] stumble in order that they [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] might fall? By no means! Rather through their [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make them [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] jealous. [12] Now if their [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] trespass means riches for the world, and if their [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] full inclusion mean! [13] Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry [14] in order somehow to make my fellow Jews [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] jealous, and thus save some of them [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect]. [15] For if their [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] acceptance mean but life from the dead? [16] If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. [17] But if some of the branches [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, [18] do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. [19] Then you will say, “Branches [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” [20] That is true. They [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. [21] For if God did not spare the natural branches [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect], neither will he spare you. [22] Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect], but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. [23] And even they [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect], if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. [24] For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect], the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. [25] Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect], until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. [26] And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; [27] “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” [28] As regards the gospel, they [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. [29] For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. [30] For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] disobedience, [31] so they [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they [“the rest”, i.e. the non-elect] also may now receive mercy. [32] For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

By Paul’s definition, when a non-elect person trusts in Christ, they will become part of “the elect”, as they will then have obtained righteousness. On an individual basis, therefore, a person can change from being non-elect to being elect. They move from the group of people called “the rest” into the group of people called “the elect”.

 

[Tong2020]

This is just you imposing your determinism onto scripture. You can't have it both ways. Either Abraham had a choice and obeyed, or he was just God's robot, programmed to do exactly what God said.
I'll go with what scripture says instead of your pagan determinism.

???????

Did you just refute nothing in what I said in my post in the quote box? Well.

Do you deny that Abram, at the time that God had spoken to him, belongs to a family of idolaters, who worshiped false gods?

Where in that part of my post is determinism? That's a strawman Renniks. Bringing up a strawman just means you have nothing to say that refutes what I said in my post.

8By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, without knowing where he was going.


9By faith he dwelt in the promised land as a stranger in a foreign country. He lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Obedience requires freedom of the will. Obedience requires that there was a real choice, not a pre-written script.

Of course there was a real choice. I did not say otherwise. What I said and for which you seem to ignore and said nothing for or against, is that, it cannot be dismissed that God worked His way into Abram, into his mind and heart, that Abram was convicted, convinced and converted by God so that Abraham, without question or hesitation, believed and obeyed.

In your world, apparently there's no room for obedience. If God is doing everything, irresistibly imposing faith on some and withholding it from others, then we are all robots just playing our pre-determined roles. That's not even close to what the Bible teaches.

Again, I don't know where that is coming from. For there sure is plenty of room for obedience in my world. Strawman now all over. Perhaps your last line of defense?

Tong
R0560

 

[Renniks]

f course there was a real choice. I did not say otherwise. What I said and for which you seem to ignore and said nothing for or against, is that, it cannot be dismissed that God worked His way into Abram, into his mind and heart, that Abram was convicted, convinced and converted by God so that Abraham, without question or hesitation, believed and obeyed.
Again, I don't know where that is coming from. For there sure is plenty of room for obedience in my world. Strawman now all over. Perhaps your last line of defense?

Lol, again you can't have it both ways. Either faith is something that Abraham did, or God did it all. Of course, Abraham was convicted, as all of us are, and of course, Abraham could have disobeyed and remained an idol worshiper, but God knew he would not, because of his foreknowledge. You try to say God gives us a faith that we cannot refuse and at the same time claim there are real choices. That isn't possible.

 

[Tong2020]

Lol, seriously, read the faith chapter. If no one was ever commended for having faith and scripture taught that God just irresistibly imposes faith on people and withholds it from other people, well, you would have a leg to stand on. As it is, you are just adding your pagan determinism to the Bible.

I have read Hebrews 11, if that is what you are referring to as the faith chapter. So? Oh you read the chapter as speaking about people commended for having faith? Then that is a misuse again of scriptures. For the chapter is not really about that, but about what faith is and what good and incredible deeds by faith had enabled the "elders" to do. You'll observe, almost every verse starts with "By faith....".

And here again is the strawman. For there is nothing in my post where I have said anything about God irresistibly imposes faith on people and withholds it from others nor was there even a shadow of determinism there sir.

Tong
R0562

 

[Tong2020]

And? I certainly didn't say that " Paul said what he said in verses 6-33 in verses 1-5." That was totally your invention. I said that he was setting up his argument from the start of the chapter.

No need to tell us what you said. Any one can read the post and see what you said.

Tong
R0563

 

[Tong2020]

By Paul’s definition, when a non-elect person trusts in Christ, they will become part of “the elect”, as they will then have obtained righteousness. On an individual basis, therefore, a person can change from being non-elect to being elect. They move from the group of people called “the rest” into the group of people called “the elect”.

What did Paul say about the "elect", who correspond to the “remnant” from verse 5? Paul said of them "a remnant according to the election of grace". Why they are called by Paul as "elect" is obvious. It's because they were saved according to the election of grace.

So, what you say there is not Paul's definition but your definition.

Now let's consider what Paul said about "the rest" of Israel, excluding "the elect", in the following verses:

7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:

“God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”

9 And David says:

“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always.”

They were blinded by God. Now, as it is God who blinded them by giving them a spirit of stupor, unless God will enable them to see, they will remain blind. Do you agree?

Now let's go to what Paul said concerning Israel in the following verses:

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved ......

Had the fullness of the Gentiles already come in? If yes, please explain why. If no, then would you agree that "the rest" spoken of by Paul in verse 7 remained blind? And if so, then no one of them blinded were saved, right?

Tong
R0564

 

[Renniks]

No need to tell us what you said. Any one can read the post and see what you said.

Tong
R0563

And it sure was not what you said I said.

 

[Renniks]

Had the fullness of the Gentiles already come in? If yes, please explain why. If no, then would you agree that "the rest" spoken of by Paul in verse 7 remained blind? And if so, then no one of them blinded were saved, right?

You totally ignored that Paul said they had not fallen beyond recovery. and that he starts the chapter by saying:"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!" Of course, the blinded ones were still capable of being saved. Otherwise, Paul could not have said they did not fall beyond recovery. And that they fell, places the blame on them, not on God for their blindness. And Paul's conclusion: 32 "For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
"Them all" means God has mercy on every individual. We all, everyone have a chance to be saved. There's no one God doesn't give the opportunity to seek and find him. We can become blind like much of Israel was by refusing to see. I believe we can even fall beyond recovery, but that's our doing, not God's doing. Some of these Israelites were in such a state that God had to send the gospel to the gentiles first before they would become jealous and return to him. But, again, this has nothing to do with any of them being chosen for salvation and others passed over. It was a temporary situation that can happen to any rebellious person. The very fact that Paul says some of the hardened ones would be saved later, shows that that individual election to salvation is false.

 

[Renniks]

And here again is the strawman. For there is nothing in my post where I have said anything about God irresistibly imposes faith on people and withholds it from others

Well, when you say that Faith is a gift that God gave Abraham, and deny that Abraham had a faith of his own, that is exactly what I take from it. If God is just giving faith to some and not others, then the others certainly don't deserve punishment for not having what they were never given.

I have read Hebrews 11, if that is what you are referring to as the faith chapter. So? Oh you read the chapter as speaking about people commended for having faith? Then that is a misuse again of scriptures. For the chapter is not really about that, but about what faith is and what good and incredible deeds by faith had enabled the "elders" to do. You'll observe, almost every verse starts with "By faith...."

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for."
Huge Facepalm! Nope, of course, there was no commending anyone for faith in the faith chapter, although that's exactly what the very first verse says. I'll stilck with scripture, thanks!

 

[Tong2020]

Lol, again you can't have it both ways. Either faith is something that Abraham did, or God did it all. Of course, Abraham was convicted, as all of us are, and of course, Abraham could have disobeyed and remained an idol worshiper, but God knew he would not, because of his foreknowledge. You try to say God gives us a faith that we cannot refuse and at the same time claim there are real choices. That isn't possible.

It seems you are having fun with your strawmen. Anyway, I am not having it both ways sir. I have it only in God's way.

Based on what you say there, it seems that you don't know what faith is. Do you not believe what Scriptures says of faith, that "faith comes by hearing..."? That only shows that faith is something that is outside of man and that which comes to him.

You seem to dismiss, that before Abram made his choice to believe and obey God, that God had convicted and convinced Abram that He is the true God and not the false gods he worships. It is not what it seems you say, that Abram just chose to believe and obey what God told him in Gen. 12:1-3 upon hearing it. I strongly believe that God had convicted and convinced Abram that He is the true God and not the false gods he worships, bringing Abraham to repent from idolatry and unto belief and obedience to God.

You said "You try to say God gives us a faith that we cannot refuse and at the same time claim there are real choices. That isn't possible." I did not at all say that sir. What I have been saying is that God works in the hearts and minds of those whom He saves, convicting and convincing them of the truth. That does not at all mean that the one being saved had no real choice to make.

Tong
R0565

 

[Tong2020]

You totally ignored that Paul said they had not fallen beyond recovery. and that he starts the chapter by saying:"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!" Of course, the blinded ones were still capable of being saved. Otherwise, Paul could not have said they did not fall beyond recovery. And that they fell, places the blame on them, not on God for their blindness. And Paul's conclusion: 32 "For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."
"Them all" means God has mercy on every individual. We all, everyone have a chance to be saved. There's no one God doesn't give the opportunity to seek and find him. We can become blind like much of Israel was by refusing to see. I believe we can even fall beyond recovery, but that's our doing, not God's doing. Some of these Israelites were in such a state that God had to send the gospel to the gentiles first before they would become jealous and return to him. But, again, this has nothing to do with any of them being chosen for salvation and others passed over. It was a temporary situation that can happen to any rebellious person. The very fact that Paul says some of the hardened ones would be saved later, shows that that individual election to salvation is false.

I did not ignore what Paul said there Renniks. And I understand what he was saying. But that would bring us to what he said in verses 25-26, which tells us until when is the blindness of "the rest". So I asked, "Had the fullness of the Gentiles already come in?" which you did not care to answer. So PLEASE ADDRESS THE QUESTION.

You said "Of course, the blinded ones were still capable of being saved." Please tell us how those blinded by God Himself are still capable of being saved. By what scriptures says concerning this "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day.” , their being saved isn't possible sir, not until their blindness is taken away by God.

You seem to be saying that "the rest" blinded themselves. But that is not what scriptures say. What scriptures says is that they were blinded, and that, by God giving them a spirit of stupor. It's up to you too accept or deny that truth in scriptures.

A lot of opinions there Renniks, but sadly not a lot of truth.

Tong
R0566

 

[Tong2020]

Well, when you say that Faith is a gift that God gave Abraham, and deny that Abraham had a faith of his own, that is exactly what I take from it. If God is just giving faith to some and not others, then the others certainly don't deserve punishment for not having what they were never given.

Are you suggesting that the scriptures teach that God is under obligation to all of mankind to give each one equal opportunity to be saved? Are you suggesting that scriptures teach that if God had not spoken to each and every sinful man that had ever lived and gave them equal opportunity to be saved, that God will be sinning by that? Are you suggesting that the scriptures teach that the sinful man, if he were not given by God the opportunity afforded to Abraham to believe and obey and be saved, that they don't deserve punishment anymore for their sins?

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for."
Huge Facepalm! Nope, of course, there was no commending anyone for faith in the faith chapter, although that's exactly what the very first verse says. I'll stilck with scripture, thanks!

The ancients were commended for what sir? For having faith or for the good and incredible deeds they were enabled to do by faith? Read also verse 39.

Also check the Greek word translated "were commended", that is, "emartyrēthēsan". You also need to compare the other Bible versions or translations, especially the Greek.

Tong
R0567

 

[Renniks]

You said "You try to say God gives us a faith that we cannot refuse and at the same time claim there are real choices. That isn't possible." I did not at all say that sir. What I have been saying is that God works in the hearts and minds of those whom He saves, convicting and convincing them of the truth. That does not at all mean that the one being saved had no real choice to make.

Then you disagree with your own premise. Go back and look about what you wrote about Jacob and Esau. You claim God chose Jacob for salvation while hating Esau. If that's the case, what choice did Esau have but to be forever estranged from God? The most important choice, whether to follow God or not, you claim is already made for us. Faith is not something outside of us that is given to us. We have to exercise our will in order to believe. It's a choice, not a gift.

 

[Renniks]

You seem to dismiss, that before Abram made his choice to believe and obey God, that God had convicted and convinced Abram that He is the true God and not the false gods he worships.

This doesn't mean Abraham could not choose to remain in his idolatry, as many Israelites did when God pled with them to obey him.

 

[Renniks]

I did not ignore what Paul said there Renniks. And I understand what he was saying. But that would bring us to what he said in verses 25-26, which tells us until when is the blindness of "the rest". So I asked, "Had the fullness of the Gentiles already come in?" which you did not care to answer. So PLEASE ADDRESS THE QUESTION.

You said "Of course, the blinded ones were still capable of being saved." Please tell us how those blinded by God Himself are still capable of being saved. By what scriptures says concerning this "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day.” , their being saved isn't possible sir, not until their blindness is taken away by God.

You seem to be saying that "the rest" blinded themselves. But that is not what scriptures say. What scriptures says is that they were blinded, and that, by God giving them a spirit of stupor. It's up to you too accept or deny that truth in scriptures.

A lot of opinions there Renniks, but sadly not a lot of truth.

Tong
R0566

On the contrary, I used a lot of scripture, which you ignored.
What purpose would there be in hardening people who were incapable of being saved? They hardened thier own hearts first.
How many times did they disobey God in the OT? How many refused to see Jesus as Messiah?
Yes God sent a temporary hardening, although it was not absolute and many still believed during Jesus ministry to them. He sent this as punishment, obviously. But when Paul explains why Israel missed the Messiah, he says it's because they pursued righteousness by works instead of faith. That is the main issue in Romans.
Again, this stupor is not about individual election anyway. God would not have to harden people who could not be saved. To try and use Israel's hardened state as evidence for God choosing individuals for salvation is a serious misunderstanding of what he is teaching.

 

[Renniks]

The ancients were commended for what sir? For having faith or for the good and incredible deeds they were enabled to do by faith?

Makes no difference one way or another. But yes, it says they were commended for thier faith. Might as well just admit you got this wrong.