Without unconditional Election,no one would be saved.

[Dave L]

No. Only the remnant made up the elect, correct? Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED;[Romans 9:27] The promise made to Abraham was “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”[Genesis 15:5] We both know that not every Jew born of Abraham’s lineage made up the elect. It was the remnant that made up the elect.

“(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Romans 9:11–13)

= Arbitrary election 2a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authorityan arbitrary government
Definition of arbitrary Definition of ARBITRARY

 

[Dave L]

1Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

‘an arbitrary decision’

Did God chose His elect on a personal whim, rather than any reason or system? I’d have to say no.


(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

‘a country under arbitrary government’

Now, here is where I may have been wrong, as I never thought of arbitrary being used this way.

So, my apology to you Brother Dave.

I got these from arbitrary | Definition of arbitrary in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Thanks

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thanks

I was being unbiased. I showed you where I thought I was wrong and even apologized to you.

**I edited your post I quoted, too.

 

[Dave L]

I was being unbiased. I showed you where I thought I was wrong and even apologized to you.

Sorry, I caught this and edited my reply to say "thanks".

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thanks

I posted this...

(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

‘a country under arbitrary government’

Now, here is where I may have been wrong, as I never thought of arbitrary being used this way.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Sorry, I caught this and edited my reply to say "thanks".

Yeah, that caught me flat footed as I never saw arbitrary used that way before.

#Igoofed

 

[CoreIssue]

As expected the Calvinists are avoiding the Romans thread.

Except for two who explained nothing about Romans 8.

 

[SovereignGrace]

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [Romans 8:28-30]

Whom He foreknew...this can not mean He foreknew everybody w/o exception. If so, then everyone w/o exception is predestined, called, justified(declared righteous before God), all the way to glorification.

 

[John Caldwell]

You are reflecting what you are doing to me. I said....God decides who pleases Him. Not people. But you claim a salvation for yourself apart from God's say so. You point to a bible that anyone can buy....but this does not buy you into the kingdom of God. There are conditions...written in the bible you are neglecting to respect.

The issue is when we try to narrow down Scripture to explain one thing and then apply that explanation broadly. We don't have to do this. There is a reason Spurgeon, a Calvinist, could petition God to gather all His elect and then elect some more. The heart shows our faith beyond what words and theology can explain.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Not to butt in, but Paul answers this saying Abraham's seed is Jesus and those who believe in him. Israel = Abraham's seed, called both Hebrews and Israel in Genesis.

But Abraham was uncircumcised when he exercised the faith he had in God then God had Abraham circumcise himself his family and all those that belonged to Abraham. So those who are the seed of Abraham of faith like him are the circumcised and uncircumcised, isn't that true?

 

[TheWind]

The great blessing if the teaching of unconditional election is a great blessing to all saints throughout time.
If Jesus was not the mediator and surety from before the creation of the world, not one sinner would be saved anywhere at any time. Not one. Zero,nada.
If God had not had mercy on a multitude of sinners,electing each of them there would be no one saved as no one seeks God, no not one.psalm14:1-3,

Unless you have the seal of the Spirit of God, you are headed for damnation.

 

[justbyfaith]

But Abraham was uncircumcised when he exercised the faith he had in God then God had Abraham circumcise himself his family and all those that belonged to Abraham. So those who are the seed of Abraham of faith like him are the circumcised and uncircumcised, isn't that true?

Dave L has long since left the area.

 

[John Caldwell]

I agree with “unconditional election” in the context that men are not saved because of a condition ontological to themselves.

Deuteronomy 7 explains that God loved Israel not because they were the strongest but because God loved Israel.

Are there conditions that must be met in order for a person to be saved? Yes, of course there are. One must repent and believe. This incorporates a love man and a love for God. This incorporates being at peace with men, loving one’s enemies, having malice for no one, being obedient to the commands of God, etc. We cannot do this, but it is Christ in us. We are saved through God alone.

Calvinistic “unconditional election” is often a philosophical emphasis rather than a biblical position. Arminianism also presents God as the Author of salvation and God meeting the conditions of salvation (no one is saved apart from the work of God in the life of that person).

The disagreement is not these snips taken apart but how they work as a whole. Does God draw all men (salvation is the work of God) and then man decides? Does God draw some men over the threshold of salvation?

This short-cut type of OP/ discussion serves no purpose because it never gets to the meat of the disagreement. What needs to be discussed is the cross itself – the type and nature of the Atonement. This is where each philosophy stands or falls apart.

Otherwise you just have each side arguing against the other side from a position that side does not hold.