Featured John 6.44

*

What do you think the purpose of God is? Please give a definitive concise answer that has something do with the context and makes sense. And whatever your answer is, why is the doctrine of election going back in time instead of in eternity? More than 2500 years of human history had passed before any of these people mentioned in the text lived and Romans 9 was written 2000 years before you came on the scene. In what verse in chapter 9 would you choose where the writer stops talking about Israel and begins talking about you?

 

Sure.
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Same context, concise and makes sense definitively.

Rom 9:11 (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)
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

It goes back because Scriptures places it afore/fore/before doing good or evil or even being born.

Precisely. Given that 2500 years of human history had passed between the people mentioned by Paul and the people Paul was actually addressing, it proves what Paul is writing about are timeless truths about God that cannot be denied by the potential objector of that time as a "hey, so what if Isaac or Jacob were children of promise elected by God before they'd done any good or evil - what is it to us 2500 years later?".
I'd say by extrapolation, the same would apply another 2000 years later?

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

That one, there.
Not of works, but of him that calleth (v.11)


I've answered each of your questions and I'm ready to answer any more you might/will have. But could you return the courtesy by answering the questions I've raised -

(Given Rom 9:11), How does the purpose of God according to election stand if it is based on what good these jews do after they are born?
What was to be given to them (in Jn 6:64-65) so that they could believe and come to Jesus?

 

Nothing in the context even suggests that election is based on good and bad works. I haven't suggested it. You pulled that one out of thin air. What is suggested by the text is that election is based on the order of birth. It is the second man whom God uses. The first birth is fleshly, carnal. The second birth is spiritual. The first birth is by man and the second birth is by God. The first birth makes a man a son of man, the second birth makes a man a son of God.This is the typology that is being set forth in Rom 9. Chapter 9 comes after chapter 8 where God has shown how a man becomes a son of God. He must be quickened by the Spirit of God. In chapter 9, he is trying to show the law keeping Jews this great truth by drawing upon a book they have had in their possession for 1500 years and therefore should have known this truth. The operative argument in these verses we are discussing is that sons of Abraham are not the children of God just because of their OT privileges. The time line is very important because in spite of the fact that Jews will not believe and gentiles have been accepted, the promises to this family will still be honored sometime in the future.

Jesus was speaking of Judas. He did not come to Christ in faith because he did not believe his own scriptures concerning who Jesus was.

 

Whether you like it or not, the Law was the rule of life for saved people. Furthermore, even before the law of Moses Abraham followed the laws of God as did Noah.

 

This interpretation, though misplaced, still is commendable since you seek to hold to the principle of Rom 9:11 - that God's election of grace is independent of any of man's actions and even his very existence but is rather based on God's sovereign choice alone. You claim that sovereign choice was to pick the second born as an allegory/typology - very well, it simply throws up more questions than it answers given your other beliefs.

An allegory/typology is always setup to point to the later real deal. The allegory of Ishmael-Isaac works in Gal 4:23-24 because it is primarily applied to the mothers from who each of them are born - one of a bondwoman and the other of a freewoman. And this allegory then points to the later real deal application of how the children of promise, born of the Spirit, are born free and not in bondage to the law.

So what is the real deal application of the allegory/typology of Rom 9:11-12? You say it is man's second birth, born of the Spirit of God - And I could very well get behind that if you also declared that that birth by the election of grace is independent of any of the born man's actions and even his very existence but is rather based on God's sovereign choice alone as to whom to birth. But don't you hold that one is born of God necessarily after one believes and not the other way around? And in that, are you not saying that the election of these remnant jews is indeed based on their acts after they are physically born and the rest are not elected based on their evil of unbelief, thereby contradicting Rom 9:11?

As a side-note, wasn't the typology to give birthrights and blessings to the firstborn and not the secondborn (Gen 27:36) - is Paul suddenly implying the opposite in his quotation of Genesis?

 

JD731 said↑
In what verse in chapter 9 would you choose where the writer stops talking about Israel and begins talking about you?
Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

That one, there.
Not of works, but of him that calleth (v.11)
ivdavid said: ↑.

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

That one, there.
Not of works, but of him that calleth (v.11)
_______________________________

I must quote a few verses to make my point in response to how you answered my question. One must remember that this chapter 9 is in a "israel" context, or rather, a children of Abraham context. Read the first few verses. They leave no doubt. Read these;

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

He begins next to use the typology of the OT to prove his point. Ishmael/Isaac, Esau/Jacob.

Well, in the context, who is Israel but not of Israel? Does he say? Yes, he does say. He has set up an OT scenario to make this very point and he refers to it in this chapter. Now, this post could get long and I might have to break it up some because I want to help you see this from scripture. God wants you to know it takes a second birth to be a son of God. This is his purpose.

Here are verses in the chapter that deals with mercy and a lack thereof. Read it here;

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:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

If I asked the next Reformed person who teaches what you teach about election to salvation based on this chapter where this prophecy Paul cites is located in the prophecy of Hosea, do you think they would be able to tell me? Could you tell me? How many Reformed believers do you think have ever turned over to Hosea and even read it?

Next, I am going to quote two passages that deal with the subject that God is dealing with here in this chapter, that is, that only a remnant of Israelites are spiritual and become the sons of God through the new birth.

Isa 1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

Hos 1 The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.

One prophet is to the two tribes of Judah, the few, representing the spiritual man and the other prophet is to the 10 tribe nation of Israel, the many, who represents the natural, fleshy man.

All 12 tribes are of Israel but not all 12 tribes are spiritual and 10 of these tribes, one whole nation ceases to be the people of God and without mercy. However, they were still born of Abraham through Jacob. The wrath of God upon this nation for their sins was to take them out of their land and to cut them off from his covenants. The 10 tribes then becomes the perfect type for God to use to make his Romans 9 point.

Please keep the time line in mind here. It is AD 58 when Paul writes this. This is 28 years after Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. It was 21 years since the rulers in Jerusalem began to kill the messengers of the New Covenant at the end of Acts 7.It was 18 years since God had opened up the door of faith to gentiles in Acts 10 and 18 years into the Christian age when Paul penned this letter from Corinth in Acts 18.

1) He called every one of Israel to be saved for 7 years and they refused.
2) His purpose was to save Israel as one man and he would have
3) Only those who would believe were saved and became sons of God.
4) He went to Samara next, who represents the 10 northern tribes, and some of them believed
5) God's purpose was to create a new man and since Israel refused through unbelief, he went to the gentiles and he will save gentiles as long as they will believe.

Romans 7:1 through Romans 11:12 is an explanation of the history of Acts 1 through 8.

God counts those who are not his people as gentiles. When he mentions gentiles in Rom 9 he is speaking of the 10 tribes who are in the geographical area to the north of Judah. James writes a letter to them in AD 45 and addresses it to the 12 tribes scattered abroad. Think about that. Many of Judah were in that area in those days. Remember Paul, a Benjamite, was Saul of Tarsus. Peter writes two letters to these same people and addresses it to "the strangers scattered," in these northern provinces. Strangers are people who are out of their own land.

If one approaches the scriptures as merely a religious book, like I believe all Reformed people do, then there is zero chance of making sense out of it. It has historical and practical context.In Romans 11:13, through 36 Paul addresses gentiles.It is a wonderful explanation of the history that unfolds from Acts 10:1.

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

I am quoting here what God said to Israel after the flesh and please notice that he says he will have mercy on them after he did not have mercy on them. They will be called the "children of God" because they will experience a new birth through Jesus Christ the Lord. They are children because the salvation is to individuals and not to the nation. He will save the nation once he restores the covenant relationship with them in the future.

Hos 1:1 The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.
2 The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord.
3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son.
4 And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel, in the valley of Jezreel.
6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.
7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

God did not take Israel away because he did not elect them but because of their unbelief. This is the context of Rom 9.

 

As a matter of house cleaning ivdavid, I remind you that I asked a question that I do not remember you providing an answer to. I am going to restate it here. I quoted the first and last verses of Rom 10 and I asked it. The verses say;

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:21 But to Israel he (God) saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

I asked, given the time line (AD 58), if you believe that God really has his hands stretched out to Israel as a father to his son?

 

I do not see the relation between the first and last verses as you combine them - the first verse is a prayer to the future and the last verse is a record of the past.

I do not operate on these timelines as you do, counting years and days. I do engage anyone within their belief systems if they so hold such notions, but I myself hold the Bible to be the all-sufficient living Word that does not require any extra-biblical information to understand the ways of God. If God found it not important to record these dates and years in His revealed word, then I find no use for it in determining truth - I still possess intellectual curiosity to process such data separately.

So if you're asking me a certain AD 58, I'd ask, where in Scriptures is it said that this was written in AD 58? But if you're merely asking me if it was a time after Christ's ascension or after the evangelism to the Gentiles, then yes, I would hold it in such a time.

Not has, but had. God really had His hands stretched out to Israel as a Father to his son all day long as recorded in Matt 23:37 until that generation which had filled up the measure of sin of their fathers (Matt 23:32, 36) at which point God sent forth Christ as the stumblingblock and blinded them from seeing and coming to Christ so that the Gospel may go out to all the Gentiles thereby fulfilling His promise to Abraham in Gen 12:3.

That Rom 10:21 is a completed act is evidenced further by what follows in Rom 11:1-2 which describes God casting away such disobedient and gainsaying people until He purposes to graft physical Israel back in before the end of times.

 

That’s a human evaluation that crosses the line.

 

The context surrounding John 6:44 suggests that those drawn by the Father do believe, while those that follow Jesus for some reason other than the draw of the Father cannot believe ... but the scripture only implies and does not explicitly state, so I will not claim more than scripture supports of John 6:44.


John 6:43-44 = Quit your grumbling, no one can come to me unless the Father draws them

• (a warning to those that were following but not believing, so someone can follow and not believe and Jesus implied that was because they were not drawn by the Father)

John 6:44 = and I will raise them on the last day

• (Jesus implied that those drawn to him by the Father will be saved ... similar to Jesus’ pledge that he will loose none that the Father has given him.)

John 6:44-46 = unless the Father draws ... taught of the Father

• (implies that the drawing of the Father involves some sort of special instruction. I take this to be the new heart and the new mind and the spiritually alive when we were spiritually dead - Eph 2:1-5 and the “gift” of “saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourself” - Eph 2:8-9)

 

I honestly tried processing all you wrote and interpreting the texts from your perspective and it doesn't work in some critical places.

No doubt for whom? You keep doing this, and it's amusing. Who are you preaching to assuming they have no idea or inkling that this is in the context of Israel? It's entirely possible to glean universal truths out of a specific context, right? Or do you not think so? Paul himself does it, by applying what happened in the specific context of two children thousands of years earlier to a completely different universal truth addressed to the people of his time.
As per your own quotation of Rom 9:8, If Paul contrasts the children of flesh and the children of promise as to being the seed and children of God, then does that not apply to me, a believer today, as per Gal 3:26,29 or is Galatians too not addressed to me?

Agreed on the use of typology. Disagreed on the point to be proven.

Not exactly, right? According to your interpretation, this entire passage is not addressed to me today but only to "those that know the law". So this is God wanting them to know who are the children of God.

See, you're at it again. I'm never personally offended but it is you who loses credibility when you make sweeping generalizations like this without backing them with facts. How difficult do you really think it is to locate NT prophecies in the OT - you do know there are concordances and in-page references even to those who might've never read Hosea, right? That is, if you can look past your prejudiced bias that anyone who's not of your view could never have read the entire Bible..

 

This is where I first come across your unique new argument in your post - couldn't you simply have started your post with this instead of all the additional bloat preceding this? Would've saved me all the bloat I've written all the way here

So you've just posited that in the OT prophecies, the remnant were the entire 2 tribes of the nation of Judah out of the total that also included the entire 10 tribes of the nation of Israel - but isn't that simply untrue?

Firstly, since it must be just you who's read all of Isaiah, you must surely know that Judah wasn't close to spiritual at the time and could in no sense stand to represent the spiritual man.
Secondly, and more importantly, the prophecy was made to Judah where the remnant was from within them - because of Judah's evil, the judgement is to have them destroyed by Babylon but a remnant of Judah will be saved to not cut them off entirely.

Which is the same point Paul applies to the nation of Israel at his time - that Israel will be cast away and cut-off (until just before the end of time) but a remnant from within them will be saved. Is there an alternate explanation to what seems a blatant misapplication of OT references?

Given that the 10 northern tribes are to be counted as the Gentiles, shouldn't your points 4 and 5 be merged?

I agree that anyone who wasn't a jew became counted as the Gentiles - but are there classes within Gentiles? Are there 10-tribes-of-the-northern-kingdom gentiles and then the remaining gentiles? You're saying that in Rom 9, whenever Paul uses the word Gentiles he's referring only to the 10 tribes and not anyone else - whereas I'd say he's referring to all Gentiles including the 10 tribes that were declared not God's people.

If as you say, Paul doesn't refer to any of the 'remaining' (look where we are) Gentiles until Rom 11:13, who is the Greek he refers to in Rom 10:12 - is that still the northern tribes alone? Who are the no-people foolish nation that will be used to provoke Israel to jealousy in Rom 10:19 - still the 10 tribes alone?

Sure, it has historical and practical context but only what's revealed within Scriptures is to be held sufficient in determining truth. I vaguely recollect you being against even the Arminian on their interpretation of Scriptures - if that's so, am I wrong in presuming you are generally against the protestant reformation and that you do not hold Sola Scriptura to be true?

Agreed.

Their non-election is not the cause of their being cast away. But do follow the cause-effect chain. You're right in saying that they committed the sin of unbelief. And that's because seeing they did not see and hearing they did not hear. And that's because God blinded them and gave them the spirit of slumber instead of having mercy upon them. And that's because He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. And the whom He will have mercy are those elected by grace, before any of their actions and their existence - so that it is based off God alone.

So it is their unbelief that is the root cause for them being cast away, but those being saved are by God's predestined unconditional election alone.

 

It's not true that all who are drawn will be saved. Judas was chosen and drawn and Christ called him a devil. You can't even say that God did not draw him because Christ chose the twelve in Jn 6:70.

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Jesus is God and this shows all men are drawn.
MB

 

Thank you ivdavid for continuing our conversation but I must say that I am very disappointed in your response. above. God provided an explanation of the history that was unfolding in the early years of the church age, the New Testament era, the kingdom of God. This is an age of "mystery" and therefore could not be found anywhere in the OT scriptures.You should read Matt 13 now where our Lord Jesus Christ himself described this age from the beginning, when he sowed the field with seed until the harvest when the good harvest was gathered into barns. He then gave the stewardship of those mysteries to the apostle Paul, who laid them out and explained them in the context of the things that were happening in those days, that we can read about .You should read 1 Cor 4. I will just quote it for you;

1 Cor 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

Paul said he understood all of them - 1 Cor 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge;

The kingdom of God morphed into a mystery form BECAUSE of the response of Israel to Jesus Christ, their Messiah. Jesus Christ said he came to fulfill all the law and the prophets.The new birth for Israel through him was not a mystery and was a prophecy of the OT. If it were not, these verses would never have appeared in our bibles.- Jn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Israel is a corporate entity. She has been presented that way all through the OT. To be a member of this family required a birth. When Pharoah would not allow Israel to leave Egypt in Ex 4, God sent Moses to say to him these words. - Ex 4: 22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

This firstborn son of God is born after the flesh.He must be born again of the Spirit. He will be born again like any other man. It will be when he acknowledges he is a sinner in need of salvation and repents of his sins and cries out to Jesus Christ to save him. He must look to the cross and as one. God sent Jesus to deliver his son from Satan, his taskmaster. In Hebrew, written to,of all people, the Hebrews, he said this - Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children (of Israel) are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
God gave us a picture in the OT of what he will do in the new and yet men will not believe.They cook up elaborate schemes, like men cannot believe, instead of they will not believe.Someone will be going to hell for that kind of theology. When Jesus rose from the dead he gave a legitimate command for all Israel to repent and believe in Jesus Christ and he would give them the promise of the Spirit, the new birth. Here: - Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Every one of them did not and so we have this in Acts 3; - Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people (of Israel). 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

God brought Israel out of Egypt, every single one. There was not one that was left and that is how he will birth them anew with the Spirit. The world will ultimately be blessed through this entity, this man, called Israel. The natural birth is a picture of the new birth.This is what the coming tribulation, i.e. day of the Lord, is all about. To prepare them for this new birth when all the rebels will be killed before he returns. Meanwhile God is taking the few remnant of Israel during this age and forming a "new man" called the body of Christ, the church, that is a corporate entity in itself with Christ being the head. This is not a matter of prophecy in the OT. God raised up the apostle Paul to reveal this. We have Ephesians and his other letters to reveal it to us. It was a matter of revelation to him. Ephesians is "the mystery of Christ, us in him. Colossians is the mystery of Christ in us.

Romans 7:1 through Romans 11:36 defines this age and explains it relative to the Jew and his covenants or it is explained nowhere in the scriptures. In light of this I ask you to re-evaluate your Reformed teaching.

 

I do not claim inspiration. There are no doubt several places I am lacking understanding, but not on purpose.

Rom 7:1 - Rom 11:12 is primarily to Israel. Does that mean that no truths in that discourse applies to gentiles. No, I would not claim that. However, those things that do apply to gentiles will be stated in a text that is addressed to gentiles.I gave you two verses, Rom 7:1 and Rom 11:13 that clarifies his remarks. Why would he begin to address the gentiles specifically if he had already been addressing them. Here is a verse that cannot apply to gentiles;

Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Israel had the firstfruits of the Spirit. This could not have referred to gentiles because we know the gentiles were not made partakers of Israel's blessing until much later in Acts 10. Gentiles are grafted in after natural branches were broken off.- Rom15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their (the Jews) spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

Here is another;

Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Sheep is not a metaphor for gentiles. God does not mix his metaphors.The metaphor for gentiles is dogs.

We could look at several.

Yes,God is trying to teach us that all in the world must be born again. In other words, God will live in all the sons of men, making them sons of God, living forever. He has chosen to reveal these truths through his people Israel and accomplish this through them whom he has raised up for this purpose. He does have a great adversary who is the god of this world system and who has his own agenda. There is much deceit and the battle is fierce. There will be a showdown. Who knows how God would have divided up humanity if Adam had not sinned. Probably the exact same way.

I have spoken with the Reformed for years and I have never heard a single one make any reference to Hosea 1. I should have said this statement is based on my experience. God had mercy on Judah. He did not have mercy on Ephraim. These things are noted in chapter 9 as a means to teach his election doctrine.These represent the flesh and the Spirit in more ways than one. It has nothing to do with God choosing Calvinists before the foundation of the world.

 

John 6:44 is clearly speaking about a drawing by the Father to the Son and John 12:2 is with equal clarity speaking of a drawing by the Son to Himself. The most basic “TRINITY 101” is “the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father”. They are two distinct “persons” in one Godhead.

I can post the entire Athanasian Creed if you need more clarification.

You are conflating the Father and the Son without offering scripture to support your contention that they are interchangeable in their DRAWING of men.

 

Judas really is a special case. Jesus said that he would lose none of those that the Father had given him. Jesus said that no one could snatch us out of the Father’s hand. Jesus also said “except the son of perdition that was to fulfill prophecy.” Judas, like Pharaoh, was raised to his position of authority specifically to fulfill God’s preordained plan for his destruction.

Judas is not to be held up as a “typical Christian”.

Did Judas believe?
Was Judas in fact DRAWN by God the Father?
Did Judas learn of the Father?
Did Judas have his heart of stone removed and a heart of flesh put in its place?
Was Judas dead in his sins and made alive by the gift of salvation by grace through faith not of himself, but a gift from God?

... or was the Son of Perdition merely a vessel created for destruction that God endured because even vessels of destruction serve their purpose in God’s plan?