Doctrine of Unconditional Election

God changed Jacob's name to be no more called Jacob, but to be called Israel.(Gen 32:28). Jacob, as Israel, is representative of God's elect, which is spiritual Israel (Rom 11:9).

The house of Israel turned away from God and worshiped idols, and God blinded their eyes to see the truth. They lost their fellowship with God, but still had the promise of an eternal inheritance.


God left in the midst of them a remnant of Israel that shall do no iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth; for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid. (Zeph 3:11-13.)

The remnant, whom God has revealed the truth of the gospel through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, are to teach the gospel, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and pray for their repentance.

The elect were safe contingent upon Christ successful completion of ALL which the Father set before Him
to accomplish. His offering included His mission on earth. He could only do that as a man because it was required that Christ be a
man as kinsman redeemer; that is, that He be of the human family to make one new man of two.

[Eph 2:15 KJV] 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;

Oh okay, so you're of those of verse 19 who say to God why have you made me thus - finding yourself worthy to be the judge of God? Or do you think the verses wrong or in error?
Regardless, the vessels fitted for destruction were those who were made so because of Adam and Eve's transgression, by which, they place their trust in their works thus making them fitted for destruction. Their violation, guilt and judgement, is that that they love darkness rather than light. Those vessels to glory, because they are those justified by Christ.

[Jhn 3:19 KJV]
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

[Rom 9:19-21 KJV]
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?
For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Discuss away - I'm still waiting to hear your understanding of Romans.

Not true.

Proverbs is speaking of God's sovereignty.

Okay, so then, you're saying that you don't have a reasonable understanding of Romans and need help? Is that correct?
Pertaining to context, it is of Paul edifying the Christians in Rome about the gospel of Christ. Do you need more?
Should you have additional specific questions over and above those you've already
asked, feel free to state them.

God's sovereign choices.

Ok, this portion of Scripture is speaking of Gentiles and Jews.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

So how does that fit into what you were saying?


No, I'm wondering why a God that says He wishes that none should perish would then create a people for destruction. It's not making sense to me.



But that is not what those verses are talking about. That is taking them out of context.

Ok, but on what basis to whom is it being addressed?

Say so does not negate anything, the Greek of the case ca
Greek grammar makes it clear faith cannot be the gift, but you prefer the tradition of men.

"Touto" cannot refer to faith because faith is feminine.

Touto is nominative, singular and neuter.

...and I could go on but it won't change anything because we both know the entire "system" falls apart if faith is not a gift and the system must be upheld on every point to maintain its facade of harmony.

It is speaking of Gentiles and Jews only in relation to being of the elect. The verses are stating that the elect through Christ,
become new people and are thereby reconciled to God.

Okay first, if I get your question correctly, maybe the confusion is that you misread two words of the verses, upon which
everything hangs. Look at the below verses closely. In v21, the word is "dishonor". In v22, it is "destruction".
These are different words with different meanings and intent. Those of one lump are to dishonour insofar as they are not of the lump of elect and so not justified by Christ (it is only by Christ that no dishonour is assessed). But... instead, by their violation of John 3:19, are they fitted to destruction. In other words, dishonour is not synonymous with destruction - different situations are being described. As I tried to say in my prior post, is that we should all be of the dishonour lump, but only by God's grace and mercy are any of us (the elect) of the other non-dishonour lump. Those of the dishonour lump remain "natural man" throughout their lives, and as such, by man's nature, place trust in their works for salvation instead of fully in Christ and His offering- it is that trust in their works that makes them fitted to destruction - but that was caused by Adam and Eve, not by God. It is just because God had not chosen to make them of the elect.
At least, for whatever it's worth, that's how I understand it.

[Rom 9:21-22 KJV]
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:


Second, to understand who Peter is addressing in 3:9 we need to look at the salutation of 1:1. If you read 1:1 below, we can
see he is addressing "them who have obtained like precious faith" through Jesus Christ - or, said another way, the us-ward of 3:9 are only the elect of 1:1, but not everyone, so God does not desire everyone to become saved or they would be.

[2Pe 1:1 KJV] 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

[2Pe 3:9 KJV] 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Sorry, I don't follow your point with the above. Please clarify.

Anyway, hope that makes sense - it is not easy to explain and I'm not the best of writers. If it doesn't let me know
and I'll try to clarify.

What most fail to understand when invoking the Greek language faith standards is that Jesus taught and spoke in Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

Therefore, given the Hebrew language and grammar alone, and of course that of the Aramaic, the Greek translation would then come into question. Rather than be presumed to be the original source text.

The natural mind cannot understand the things of God. It is inconsistent then to insist the natural mind can choose to come to faith in God.

If we accept what Paul tells us that the natural man, mind, can't understand the things of God because they are foolishness to them, it makes sense then that God would have to bestow faith in his salvation principles upon us after his Holy Spirit changed the natural mind so that we would no longer stand to find the things of God foolishness. Which would have naturally included anything like unto the Gospel.

So you are now arguing that scripture cannot be trusted. You do know the Koine Greek is the perfectly suited language for the purpose of spreading God's revelation.

And once again you do not interpret 1Cor 2:14 accurately.

Paul is clearly stating that divine revelation cannot be understood through the human wisdom of the world (philosophy).

He is not saying people are incapable, again another cherry picked verse apart from context to support the false system.

Now you resort to false allegations?
That's not acceptable.
Good luck with your theology.

Salvation is divine revelation...blessed are you Simon...for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven...

You believe in luck...

The irony…a Calvinist believing in luck.😂

Just kidding papermonkey😉

God choose direct revelation here and this was prior to the completion of the Jesus' ministry, we now have the full story to tell.

I find it interesting that in Acts Paul tells the King Agrippa
19 “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds.

He had a choice, he was not disobedient.
He could have been.
Ananias and Sapphira were disobedient.