Calvinism and Context?

Ah, alright.

The second statement, though, seems to be challenged by a view that God elects to salvation in the manner that reformed doctrine would have it which is why I pressed it. If there is nothing stopping God's mercy except His own will and He would have all come to knowledge of the truth, then it seems the conclusion would need to be universalism.

It is only if there is some factor outside of God and in the recipient that causes the rejection. What did Paul say to the Jews in Acts when they had rejected the message? Not that God had not elected them but "you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life. " (Acts 13:46 NIV)

This implies the Jews themselves chose not to receive grace, though it was genuinely being offered to them.

God would have all men to be saved and come to the knoweldge of the truth.

Hell was made for the devil and his angels.

For God so loved the KOSMOS....WHOSOEVER BELIEVES.

MANY ARE A CALLED but few CHOSEN

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God......who hath ears to hear and eyes to see.

and on and on and on....the context of the above verses and the verses themselves contradict this gospel-less, forced, no choice salvation being peddled on this site and in the world by Calvinites......

and you nailed it brother.....they absolutely deny context while forcing their own context and or view of the truth that they skew incessantly. NOT ONLY THAT, but they do the same to what we say....embellish, skew, twist and then deny......

Rather troubling to say the least!

If you cannot read thru these threads that promote that heretical farce and see the issues and problems that it causes, then you are neither looking at it objectively or are oblivious!.

Divide and conquer!!!!

I like this statement!

No, not even the Son of man knows the hour.......!!

It seems to me that you're claiming God was insincere in His extension of grace to Israel and beginning with preaching the kingdom to them, since according to you in order to understand their rejection we must posit that it was not actually done according to their will but God preventing them from seeing.
The limited context of blinding to accomplish the task does not imply a perpetual blinding, and you forward what could be an amenable explanation not through deduction but through fiat and beg the question.
Altogether I agree it is beyond human understanding, as no matter how you slice the world the idea of free will seems untenable. Either we are slaves to physics, or we are puppets of God. Yet that does not vindicate reformed doctrine, especially insofar as it distorts the Bible to fit a set of manmade doctrine. There is no need to bring any other passage into the context of Acts 13 as it's not quoting anything and it's not until human doctrine gets in the way that the idea that the Jews rejected the gospel of their own accord, judging themselves unworthy of eternal life, becomes problematic. It is only in a world where God's grace must be irresistable because He has elected those saved and unsaved eternally because man is incapable of generating a response that the idea that the gospel can be rejected through human will is challenged. And so we must preserve the tension and discard the doctrine that force us to moderate simple passages like that.

perpetual?
did i say that?
how long? asked Isaiah. and the LORD answered.
and the LORD also declared that He would preserve a remnant. we have to understand that, and not deny it, no matter how unpalatable it may seem -- this is the LORD's doing, He Himself says so.


limited context?
Jesus says this was still going on when He walked among them - Matthew 15
Paul said its context includes all the time of the Gentiles - Romans 11 ((with 9 & 10 providing the logical underpinning))

men will say, this only applies to the nation not the people. but the nation cannot be blind while all the people of it see - the nation is only as blind as the individuals who comprise it. that is not easy to swallow, i know, but it is the word of God, and it's not supposed to be easy and it's not supposed to be simple: the Bible is the most amazing & incredible book in all of human history.

The insincerity comes in if God is blinding them, interfering with their inability to hear it and condemning them based on His action. It would be insincere if He offers it knowing that He is preventing them from accepting it. Certainly allowing men to condemn themselves is not insincere, but that is not what reformed doctrine proposes.
And there's a lot of word games that go on in reformed circles, such as claiming that God does not symmetrically lead people to damnation as He elects those to salvation. Yet that is exactly what you are proposing here, God leading men to damnation by blinding them wholesale so He may condemn them.
It distorts the character of God and makes a mystery of how He could will all to salvation if His choice is all that stands between those damned and those saved. He at once wills them saved and damned, and such a thing cannot be so.

No, I've made my point many times in posts before I happened to post the link to bible scripture that refutes Calvinism.
Some people may not accept an individuals point of view and supported by scripture they share in the course of posting that. Sharing an impartial source that alludes to the same thing, supports the point of view, is a matter of giving readers more information.

I believe once someone truly thinks about what the false tenets are imparting about God those who love God will not be persuaded toward that indoctrination.

Calvinism/Lordship Salvation, is not Biblical. Though as we know the Bible has had its scriptures twisted in order for the twisters to substantiate all manner of false doctrine and even evil intent.
Jim Jones was a master at that. David Koresh as well. The Aryan nation and white supremacists that hold to Christian identity. And of course John Calvin, to name just a few but God knows certainly not all.

Calvinism infiltrates and subverts within the church that is why it is so dangerous.

Think of how many people died following that false teaching.

what do you think it means, then, when He told them the world would hate them because of His name, when He explained that the scriptures show He must suffer many things, be despised and rejected by the elders and the people, and ultimately lay down His life under their condemnation?
optional? but the end was declared from the beginning!

it's in the fulfillment of prophecy that He is proven, not in the giving of it - because many false prophets go out; they are proven false when what they say doesn't come to pass.

prophecy proves God's sovereignty, as He Himself explains:

He calls a man, a bird of prey, who executes His counsel. He says, He speaks it & He brings it to pass -- He purposes it and He does it; this proves He is God and no other is; He does all His will.
what do these facts say about the supposed 'sovereign free agency' of the man He calls to fulfill His purpose?
isn't that humanity's major beef with these things? the complaint that God is 'playing puppet with people' and 'that's not fair, God should respect people's free will' ? what does this mean here in Isaiah?? is that God saying He does this and that it's proof He, and He alone is God?

if it's not, what is He saying?

can human will change what is prophesied? or *must* it come to pass as He declares it?
is He not saying He is the very one who brings it to pass? IMO the very existence of prophecy throws human notions of free agency for quite the loop; it's not so free as it's made out to be: ask the bird of prey from the far country about compulsion & destiny. or maybe from his point of view, he does it of his own accord without any divine 'interference' as it may be described??

traditionally the answer to the classic question 'if He can save everyone through grace and His will is that all are saved, why doesn't He?' is His justice: He is holy, and it is His glory to not let wickedness go unpunished; He is merciful, and it is His glory to overlook offense.

It means if people hate Jesus, it's because they hate God, because Jesus is God in the flesh. This is why Jesus said anyone who has heard and learned of the Father (from the scriptures) comes to me. No one can come to Jesus unless thay are "drawn" (attracted) by the Father. Not everyone hated Jesus. Even many of the religious leaders believed in him because of what he was saying and doing.