Featured Romans 9 doesn't prove Calvinism; it proves the oppositie

Written to a church. Context matters.

 

Ok, so it says whosoever will, great, who is it that will? None seek God.

 

They dont' care about context. It destroys their humanistic viewpoint.

 

The above was a lot of nothing.
First, you misspoke. Jacob is Israel, therefore he received the Inheritance.
The circumstances of how show that Jacob is just as unrighteous as Esau. Therefore, Jacob receiving the inheritance is because God chose to be gracious to him and not to Esau. Read Hebrews 12 to see how God rejected Esau.

Saving grace is an action of God toward a person who does not merit such a kind action. It is not given to all mankind. If it were...then all mankind would, without a shadow of doubt, be eternally saved. God would chose to save them and extract them out of the slavery to sin and place them in servanthood to the King. But, God doesn't choose to save everyone. So, either God is unfair or, God is Sovereign and not obligated to save anyone, yet chooses some to save anyway. In the end salvation is always in God's hand, not in human hands. At some point you have to embrace this Biblical truth.

 

The key point the other side refuses to acknowledge.

 

Choosing the older to serve the younger referred to the twins, not two peoples. For you to pretend not see that is revolting. Did you agree the election was conditional? Nope.

Stop pretending to find fault in others and look at your own back yard.

Which of the five points of the TULIP do you disavow?

Did Christ die as a ransom for all, or just the elect?

Do lost sinners have the innate ability to seek God and trust fully in Christ?

Does God choose individual for salvation because He credited their faith as righteousness.

 

Did I say the election of the twins was about salvation? Nope.
I said it was a conditional election, and you, despite all the huffing and puffing, have not directly answered that question.

 

The Calvinists know the election of the twins demonstrates conditional election to fulfill God's purpose and plan, so they pathetically seek to change the subject.

 

The elect

No, they are not lost, they are enslaved by sin, incapable of seeking. They need a Redeemer.

No. This is Vanism, not taught in scripture. It has been shown wrong time after time at the BB in many topic threads. Van is the only human believing this falsehood.

God's choice is held to Himself alone. God chose to save and to give this individual the faith that justifies and proves their salvation.
Faith doesn't come before righteousness or before God chooses. Faith is the effect of God's choosing.

Van, this is a tired belief that only you hold, yet you keep trying to introduce it in various sundry ways. No one agrees with you.
(I now expect you to speak to an imaginary third person who doesn't exist in your response to me.)

 

How is that a conditional election? What was the condition?

 

Folks my questions were directed at a person who denies being a Calvinist. This response from a Calvinist simply demonstrates the poster is a Calvinist. They advocate obviously false doctrine and claim it has been shown to be true in the unreferenced past. I kid you not...

 

The endless question ploy by claiming if I choose the younger to serve the older, the election is not conditioned on who will be older and who will be younger.

 

Where does it say that the election was BECAUSE he was younger? That would be a conditional election, though it would still be the election of God's choice which is what unconditional election is actually about, but I don't see the text stating that do you?

 

Boom! And there you have it folks. Exactly as I predicted. The person above would not address the person directly, but would imagine he was talking to others and he would bring up an imaginary boogeyman who would act as his crutch to not review his own failed theology.
So, this post mimicks the poster and addresses others who most likely don't care...or they would post their own comments. But hey, when in Vanworld do as Van does...

 

Who do you think you are to label someone something by which they reject? Why is it your place to make sure such a label is attached to them?

 

What context?

Does it really matter. Remember, take this is context of John Again, He did not say the elect

He came for all (the world) but only "whoever believes" will receive life.

But does not Calvinism insist their salvation election was from the foundation of the earth. It should not matter them. Because as Calvinism teaches, It is not based on us believing, its based on God regenerating us and giving us the ability to believe.

In other words, For God so loved the elect that he gave his only son to give eternal life to them so they may believe.

 

Who is this directed to?

 

lol.

You mispeak. Jacob never recieved the inheritance (the land of Canaan)

You also do not understand, Jacob NEVER bowed down to esau.

Genesis 32:4
And he commanded them, saying, “Speak thus to my lord Esau, ‘Thus your servant Jacob says: “I have dwelt with Laban and stayed there until now.


Jacob knew who was the lord and who was the servant,

You want to make it the kids. ITS NOT.. Its the familes.

 

Oh I don't remember, apparently it diden't save the quote.

 

It absolutely matters.