Doctrine of Unconditional Election

You are not Duckybill

So, you place your example at the same level as the parables spoken by Christ? Really? Funny, that I didn't find them in the Bible anywhere. FYI just because you state them doesn't make them gospel, although you seem to think they are. Not good to do that,

No and no. Verse 19 further clarifies who the all are. Do you believe that everyone will be saved? The many are the elect which are the many of all people. The all are all of the elect.

I have no problem with your response and believe that the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation. As I had previously posted - The Gospel must be proclaimed to everyone.

Our difference is not in the proclamation of the message. It is in who is able to believe. The heart of the hearer must be prepared first. The Lord's parable - Says the "soil" must be prepared for the "seed". Nothing good happens in unprepared soil. Only if the "Heart or Soil" is prepared, can the Gospel be the light that will lead to the Jesus Christ of the Bible. For the Heart that has not been prepared, it will have a "hardening" effect. This same teaching, as the parable of the sower, is stated in Acts:

Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

It is the lack, of this Heart preparation, that caused the Lord to declare these two things:

1.) No man can come (Which would be better rendered "is able"), to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)
2.) Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. (John 10:25)

Do you think the Gospel, has a greater drawing power than the Lord (The Word), has? If people will not listen to the Incarnate Word, how is preaching going to make them believe?

This is why I believe in, the two distinctions, of Gospel effect: The General call of the Gospel and the Effectual call of the Gospel. The Gospel itself cannot make this distinction. It cannot be General to some and Effectual to others. Therefore, it must be God who makes the distinction.

If you have a well thought out reply - for why this logic is wrong - then I welcome it.

Hello My Friend,
Christians are called to be saints. Of course we are called to service. That is part of the good works that are ordained for us. Eph2:10
To deny election unto salvation is aunbiblical resistence to truth.

Do you mean like this?
10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

FreeGrace2 said:
Maybe it's just that you are reading angry. None of this is personal to me. I don't want to be wrong any more than you do.

And I defend the truth that is clearly stated in the Bible. You can call it whatever you want, but when people who make claims but can't defend them from plainly stated verses, my goal is to wake them up to that fact.

It it those kind of people who get angry.
That doesn't mean I didn't prove them. It only shows you haven't seen them. The Bible speaks of eyes and ears that are closed.

But, what does this have to do with your false charge that I "read angry"?

What are you talking about? Could you be more clear? And maybe even cite a post # with it?

So, another insinuation that I insult others. I would invite you to quote my insults and post #s, if I really have. I've been careful to keep all my posts impersonal.

Maybe you take a criticism as an insult. Well, it's not. When someone misquotes a verse or misinterprets it, pointing that out isn't an insult but a criticism.

Learn to discern the difference, please.

FreeGrace2 said:
So you think Christ's faith in His Father saves us???
And that is about obedience, not "faith IN something". That's why most scholars properly translate Gal 2:16 and Phil 3:9 as "faith in Christ". Because Christ ISN'T putting His faith in anything. He doesn't need to.

And that isn't "faith OF". That's obedience.

Absolutely.

FreeGrace2 said:
This comment makes no sense. I was responding to your post. I have no idea what you are referring to.
And....still not making any sense. Why would I think I'm someone else?

FreeGrace2 said:
Jesus used parables, earthly events, to explain spiritual events. So, I've got it right. You, however, don't.
Why in the world would you or anyone think such nonsense. Not the same level. But, the same principle.

Of course not.

Nope. The Greek for "the many" literally means "the masses".

Do you believe that MOST people will be saved? Read Matt 7:14.

If "the many" means "less than all", then it SURELY MUST mean "most" or "vast majority". Which YOU KNOW very well cannot be true.

FreeGrace2 said:
1 Cor 1:27-28
27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,

This is a classic passage that shows clearly that election is to service.

The red words are who God has chosen/elected. The blue words are the purpose for which God chose them.
Rather, Christians are called to service. All believers have been set apart (sanctified) in their position in Christ. As well, all believers are called to progressive sanctification, which is spiritual growth.

And, that is also an election. Eph 1:4, 1 Cor 1:27-28, and many other verses.

If you are correct, then you probably have at least 1 verse that clearly says so. Please share.

In case I wasn't clear, by the above, I didn't mean that Christ didn't have faith in God the Father, obviously He did, total and complete faith

The verse does not link election with salvation in a causative way.

It is very possible that Paul was using the word in the way ALL Jews would have; the Jewish people as "the elect of God".

It should be obvious that many Jews were never saved in the OT, yet, God did elect/choose the nation to serve Him.

In case I haven't been clear, the Bible's use of "faith" is in the sense of trusting apart from experience.

What the demons "believe" in James 2:19 isn't about trust in any sense. It's about what they know from experience.

So, there is NOTHING about th "faith of demons" in the Bible anywhere, in spite of all the preachers and teachers who use that silly phrase.

it is not a false statement to notice and say your posts read angry. The above quote shows you do not read , with an effort to understand, other's post .

I am not an OSAS person. Nor am I all tied up in TULIP and the aggression and anger that goes along with it.

I have a Bible full of scripture and it does not support your nastiness or inability to actually discuss

Really, ducky, things are just not as quacked up as you think they are.

Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

This simple clear statement of Jesus makes the process of salvation so clear, God makes the first move. He draws. We read in more than one place,
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Mankind in the Garden had everything but that was not enough mankind wanted control and by doing so he lost what had been given to him. Again we see the tower in Babylon man wanting his own way . Same with the golden calf . We humans have a hard time not doing stuff our own way. Good ol Samson did it his way. There is the story of the 12 scouts, only 2 trusted God. Even Moses just had to hit the Rock twice. Today we want to be in control of 'His Salvation ' Psa_3:8 Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah. We contort the Scriptures twist them to fit our vision. The words of Jesus are simple and clear No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day

FreeGrace2 said:
This comment makes no sense. I was responding to your post. I have no idea what you are referring to.

And....still not making any sense. Why would I think I'm someone else?
Did I say your statement was false? No, I wondered whether you are reading angry.

I asked what it means. I did make an effort to understand, but am unable to understand what reads confused to me.

Are you going to answer, or just continue to complain about my posts?

When a post doesn't make sense, it's only normal to ask for clarity. That isn't an insult or a criticism. It is an attempt to understand what you post.

Your are correct i should have said false charge...