Understanding God’s election

[Magenta]

The illusion of the will being free simply cannot be accounted for with Scripture.

Given that, it is rather amazing that so many believe the lie.

Oh, well, yes, the devil did do it.

 

[Rufus]

Matthew 11:28-30
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

There's not even a hint in there that would indicate His meaning to be anything akin to, "Take my yoke upon you whom are my elect..." This false practice of forcing constraints into all the texts that defy the horrid falsehoods that ultimately make God guilty of sin by blocking out most from salvation on a basis that not even hyper-Calvinists can identify, apart from God's own sovereignty, that's a cop-out and a cheap parlor trick of smoke and mirrors that has duped many a professing believer. That trash only appeals to human pride!

God locked out all the fallen angels from salvation, so in your universe that makes God guilty of [their] sin??? Or is God guilty of his own sin the basis of withholding his grace from them? In either case, how exactly does that work since God owes his grace to NO ONE!?

 

[Musicmaster]

The illusion of the will being free simply cannot be accounted for with Scripture.

Given that, it is rather amazing that so many believe the lie.

Oh, well, yes, the devil did do it.

Absent any proof for your claim, there's nothing of substance to address and counter.

So, if I may, what's your point? Calling something a lie without proving such is meaningless tirade.

MM

 

[Rufus]

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that John was inspired to write something that doesn't mean what it says? Please show to us anything in that context that would offer any limitations to the scope of "all". By what authority do you inject a constraint into that statement in order to limit its scope only to the "elect"? Repeating yourself doesn't prove anything when you fail to provide backing to your stand-alone claim. Was John's fingers cramping up, thus causing him to leave out that constraint of meaning? I mean, what are you saying? Where's the proof?

The license so many seem to think they have in altering the text in order to try and force it into conformance to dogmas formulated by other false teachers, that just makes no sense to any honest Bible student. Please show to us why we should believe that you have rightfully injected a limitation to the scope of that verse down to the level of it only encompassing the elect.

MM

I already have. Even beamed up biblical definitions to you. Since individual men are not in view in the passage, then the passage must be speaking collectively, "all" peoples, all nations, etc.. And as proven this interpretation squares with many other supporting. You're going to have to come with something more than wishful thinking ("men") to support your contention that "all" means each and every person.

 

[Magenta]

Absent any proof for your claim, there's nothing of substance to address and counter.

So, if I may, what's your point? Calling something a lie without proving such is meaningless tirade.

MM

A tirade? Really? You do lower yourself to identify it as such.

Perhaps I was wrong to trust you with your definitions and all your book learning.

The proof has been given a multitude of times. Are you blind?

1 Peter 2:7-8 To you who believe, then, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word- and to this they were appointed.
Thank you for the inspiration, Rufus! .

 

[Rufus]

ALL is pan, Greek neuter singular (everything), not pas (everyone).



Jesus never drove away anyone who came to Him, including His enemies, the murderous scribes and pharisees.

Really? He did drive out the money changers from the temple on two different occasions. So, there is that...

Please demonstrate that you understand what the negative inference fallacy is, by giving us your explanation of it. I think you still have no idea why your eisegesis of this text is logically invalid and unsound.

Two things: First, demonstrate to me that you understand the difference between qualfied and unqualfiied statements, declarations or propositions.

Secondly, which passage in Jn 6 has my interepretation allegedly committed the above fallacy. Be specific.

 

[GWH]

No, logic does not. Your emotions might tell you that but sheer, pure logic: NO!? Moreover, on what JUDICIAL basis would such people be saved, since only those of faith can be justified by God?

Well, I bet you a million heavenly dollars that when we get to heaven we will learn that there are no babies or mentally incompetent people to hell.

 

[Rufus]

Well, I bet you a million heavenly dollars that when we get to heaven we will learn that there are no babies or mentally incompetent people to hell.

Your hypothetical bet does not constitute the judicial ground upon which a thrice holy, righteous and good God would be able to save anyone apart from faith and repentance. So, get busy and search for it. Get back to me, please, if you ever find it in scripture.

 

[brightfame52]

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that John was inspired to write something that doesn't mean what it says? Please show to us anything in that context that would offer any limitations to the scope of "all". By what authority do you inject a constraint into that statement in order to limit its scope only to the "elect"? Repeating yourself doesn't prove anything when you fail to provide backing to your stand-alone claim. Was John's fingers cramping up, thus causing him to leave out that constraint of meaning? I mean, what are you saying? Where's the proof?

The license so many seem to think they have in altering the text in order to try and force it into conformance to dogmas formulated by other false teachers, that just makes no sense to any honest Bible student. Please show to us why we should believe that you have rightfully injected a limitation to the scope of that verse down to the level of it only encompassing the elect.

MM

The all men are the elect.

 

[brightfame52]

@Musicmaster

Matthew 11:28-30
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Thats the elect !

 

[Musicmaster]

A tirade? Really? You do lower yourself to identify it as such.

Perhaps I was wrong to trust you with your definitions and all your book learning.

The proof has been given a multitude of times. Are you blind?

1 Peter 2:7-8 To you who believe, then, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word- and to this they were appointed.
Thank you for the inspiration, Rufus! .

If you have proven your point, then please repost and I will glad to address your points.


MM

 

[Musicmaster]

The all men are the elect.

I said nothing of the kind. Please don't mispresent what I actually said and what scripture clearly says.

If you have something of substance to try and prove your point, then by all means, post it besides just these meaningless one-liners.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

@Musicmaster


Thats the elect !

Trying to force constraints upon texts that make not even a hint of an illusion to the constraint you're trying to place upon them, I remain unimpressed.

MM

 

[brightfame52]

I said nothing of the kind. Please don't mispresent what I actually said and what scripture clearly says.

If you have something of substance to try and prove your point, then by all means, post it besides just these meaningless one-liners.

MM

The scripture you quote pertains to the elect

 

[brightfame52]

Trying to force constraints upon texts that make not even a hint of an illusion to the constraint you're trying to place upon them, I remain unimpressed.

MM

You doing the forcing, those scriptures about the elect

 

[studier]

Yes, vv.35-39 is parallel with vv.43-47.

Thanks, but what I asked is - is "come to Jesus" parallel with "believe in Jesus" in those 2 sections of John6? IOW all who come believe.

 

[GWH]

Your hypothetical bet does not constitute the judicial ground upon which a thrice holy, righteous and good God would be able to save anyone apart from faith and repentance. So, get busy and search for it. Get back to me, please, if you ever find it in scripture.

I did not say they would be saved.

 

[brightfame52]

Thanks, but what I asked is - is "come to Jesus" parallel with "believe in Jesus" in those 2 sections of John6? IOW all who come believe.

One cant believe in Jesus without believing in election and limited effectual atonement. Yje jesus who died for all mankind, The sheep and goats, the wheat and tares, is a false christ or jesus

 

[Musicmaster]

You doing the forcing, those scriptures about the elect

Mention of the elect are not even in the context, so you're still arguing from silence.

So, what's your point?

MM

 

[studier]

One cant believe in Jesus without believing in election and limited effectual atonement. Yje jesus who died for all mankind, The sheep and goats, the wheat and tares, is a false christ or jesus

This doesn't answer my questions either, to say the least.