The Bible confirms in Matthew 1:21b who it is Jesus Gave Himself to Save, as in who He died for and why He died for them.

[Alan Dale Gross]

What you have proposed is determinism for the “elect” and deism for the damned. You present an unequal picture of God.

"Deus otiosus (Latin: "inactive god"), and also known as the clockmaker theory, is the belief in a creator god who has entirely withdrawn from governing the universe after creating it or is no longer involved in its daily operation."

Unlike classical theism, Deism is the belief in the existence of a creator God who simply does not intervene anymore after creating the universe,..."

This Characteristic of God where you say I am describing His Relationship to the lost and that He is a God Who "does not intervene anymore after creating", similar to the Characteristic of Deism overall, is True, only with regard to where the Bible Says, "the children being not yet born, neither having done any Good or Evil, that the Purpose of God According to Election might Stand...", because during that season in the Mind of God in Eternity Past, God has "Withdrawn", if you will, His Governing of that Portion of His Universe and DID NOT HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION OF "CHOOSING THOSE HE DID NOT SELECT", BECAUSE IN THE NEGATIVE SENSE OF LOOKING AT WHAT GOD DID AND DIDN'T DO, HE DID NOT HAVE TO BE INVOLVED AND DID NOT GOVERN SOMETHING THAT HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, i.e., SOME WEREN'T SELECTED, BECAUSE, THEYY HAD ALREADY NOT BEEN SELECTED, AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT.

Except when you say He just wasn’t thinking about what would happen to those He passes by. Otherwise it is double predestination.

God Knew all things, then, as He Always has and Always Will. And, in God's Mind, His Choosing of the children to be Loved by Him, or not, Took Place When and How He Said, when they were "not yet born, neither having done any Good or Evil".

At once, the children were Considered by God as "neither having done any Good or Evil", while logically then, subsequent to that Consideration by God, God in His Mind Brought the children under a secondary Consideration as being in their Sinful State, and yes, that is the Time, in His Mind and Operation in Providence that the result of them being Guily of sin and having HAD NO SAVIOR GIVEN TO THEM, His View of their Hopeless sinful State necessitated His Decgee that they be Damned.

But God has said that he is rich in mercy. He does not say He is stingy with mercy.

Right. And He doesn't Say that He is a sin-cursed weak god that is no god at all, who sent his son to die for the sins of souls who were then, or have been, and will be Suffering in Hell, Forever, and then he must be viewed as a failure of a false god who can't manage to have enough power to accomplish his will.

Satan says all that.

 

[Ben1445]

Actually the Bible says, "the children being not yet born, neither having done any Good or Evil, that the Purpose of God According to Election might Stand...", at which time it is implying that the Purpose of God was the Election of Jacob, as opposed to His Purpose including the non-Election of Esau.

As God’s chosen people and not for salvation. Unless you are talking about all Israel being born again believers. Then you would be consistent. Not accurate, but consistent.

Way to pull that one out of context… again.

 

[Ben1445]

This Characteristic of God where you say I am describing His Relationship to the lost and that He is a God Who "does not intervene anymore after creating", similar to the Characteristic of Deism overall, is True,

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Two specific individuals are in the immediate context and are who Paul is referring to, as being Chosen in Love, as Jacob was, or not Chosen and , therefore, relatively speaking Hating Esau.

Individuals are Chosen, WHO ARE MENTIONED BY NAME, "neither having done any Good or Evil".

"the children being not yet born, neither having done any Good or Evil

IV. ELECTION WAS PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL, PARTICULAR, AND DISCRIMINATORY

"Being forced to admit that Election of some kind took place in Eternity,
some Arminians hold to one of the three following notions:

1. THAT ELECTION IN THE BIBLE HAS REFERENCE, ONLY TO ISRAEL AS A NATION AND TO THE GENTILES AS A WHOLE, AND THAT IT IS ONLY AN ELECTION TO POSITION AND ADVANTAGE, NOT TO ETERNAL LIFE

"It is said that God chose Israel as a Nation, then, in New Testament days, rejected her, and substituted the Gentiles as a whole. It is believed by those who hold this view that the classic discussion of Election in Rom. 9 and 11 refers not to individual Election to Eternal Life, but only to such Corporate Election as set in previous portion of this article. The fact that any man can hold such a position as this only shows to what lengths of folly prejudice will lead one.

Our reply:

(1) Answering the ideas that in Romans 9 and 11 we have an individual Election of Jews to Eternal Life, as well as the National Election of Israel to position and advantage, is evident from;

A. The Declaration that God has Mercy on whom He Will and Hardens whom He Will. Rom. 9:18.

Such a Declaration is not applicable to National or Corporate Election and Rejection. It can be applied only to God's dealings with individuals. And that it does so apply becomes more evident as we pursue Paul's discussion further.

B. The anticipated objection to this manner of dealing with men. Rom. 9:19.

"What is this objection in plain words? As stated by A. N. Arnold it is this: "If it is God's Will to Harden* a man, since His Will cannot be successfully Resisted, how can He Blame Hardened sinners?" By Prof. David Brown the objection is stated as follows: "This Doctrine is incompatible with Human Responsibility;

"if God Chooses and Rejects, Pardons and Punishes, whom He Pleases, why are those blamed who, if Rejected by Him, cannot help sinning and Perishing?"

"And this same commentator goes on to say that this objection shows "the real Nature of the Doctrine objected to-that it is Election and Non-election to Eternal Salvation prior to any difference of personal character; this is the only Doctrine that could suggest the objection here stated."

* 'Hardening' is allowing the person who has been exercising their sinful self by choice and habit and are again "left" to continue sinning into even more sin, and in that sense is how they may be said to be 'Hardened' by God.

C. "The mention of "vessels of mercy" and "vessels of wrath." Rom. 9:21-23.

"This is not applicable to National or Corporate Election to Position and Advantage. In such an Election, the non-Elect Nations and groups cannot justly be represented as "vessels of wrath," because such Election does not represent them wholly abandoned to Wrath. During the days of God's Special Dealing with the Jews as an Elect Nation, other Nations were not entirely shut out. Individuals of them could partake of the Theocratic Blessings of Israel by submitting to, and observing, the rites of Israel.

D. "The mention of a portion of Israel as "the Election" and "a Remnant according to the Election of Grace." Rom. 11:5,7.

"In this Elect Remnant, gathered from an Elect Nation, we have an Election within an Election, an Election of individuals to Eternal Life, who belonged to a people whom God Elected to the Privileges of Grace" (An American Commentary on the New Testament)..."

(3) "That there is an individual Election of Gentiles as well as of Jews to Eternal Life is evident from:

A. Rom. 9: 24; "Even us, whom He hath Called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

(Alan's Note: For your educational purposes only, you might as well add this phrase, "not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles" where you have seen several verses using, "all men, or "all" or "for the whole World", when speaking of men, etc., because that's what it means, for example:

I Timothy 2:1-4;
1; I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3; For this is Good and Acceptable in the Sight of God our Saviour;
4; "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth,
"not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."

Now can you understand it?

How about...?

1 John 2:10 "He is the Propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only,
but also for the sins of the whole world.
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."

"IN OTHER WORDS these words in these phases
are EQUIVALENT TNEANOTHER:

"not for ours only", who are the Jews in 1 John 2:10,
= "not of the Jews only", in I Timothy 2:4

"but also for the sins of the whole World", who are the Gentiles in 1 John 2:10,
= but also of the Gentiles, in I Timothy 2:4"

or

I Timothy 2:4 "Who Gave Himself a Ransom for all,
to be Testified in Due Time",
"not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."

"In this verse, Paul follows his reference to "Vessels of Mercy. . .afore Prepared unto Glory"
with the statement: "Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles."

"This shows us clearly that the "Vessels of Mercy," which are manifestly Elect individuals, are made up of both Jews and Gentiles. Thus we have an individual Election of Gentiles as well as of Jews.

"On this verse Prof. Brown remarks illuminatingly:

"Here for the first time in this chapter the Calling of the Gentiles is introduced;
all before having respect, not to the substitution of the Called Gentiles for the Rejected Jews, but to the Choice of one Portion of the same Israel.

"Had Israel's Rejection been total, God's Promise to Abraham would not have been fulfilled by the substitution of the Gentiles in their room; but Israel's Rejection being only partial, the Preservation of a 'Remnant,' in which the Promise was made Good, was but 'according to the Election of Grace.'

"And now, for the first time, the Apostle tells us that along with this Elect remnant of Israel
it is God's Purpose to 'take out of the Gentiles a people for His Name' (Acts 15:14)."

B. "References to Election in other New Testament books.

"These references appear somewhere in this discussion. Hence they need not be mentioned here. Let the reader turn the pages of this chapter and note these references, marking how certainly they refer to an individual election to salvation.

C. "All the arguments which we now address to the second theory, which denies that Election was individual."

Much more at: https://bereabaptistvoice.org/wp-co...ystematicstudyofbibledoctrine-t.p.simmons.pdf

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Thank you for your honesty.

You cut the phase that you call my "honesty", but for the sake of honesty, I believe we should read and review my whole sentence, with its very specific qualifiers.

Otherwise, I need to thank you for your dishonesty?

This Characteristic of God where you say I am describing His Relationship to the lost and that He is a God Who "does not intervene anymore after creating", similar to the Characteristic of Deism overall, is True,

Then I am saying as I continue my stance in this same sentence, the following;
before I was rudely interrupted by someone who should obviously have better manners.

only with regard to where the Bible Says, "the children being not yet born, neither having done any Good or Evil, that the Purpose of God According to Election might Stand...", because during that season in the Mind of God in Eternity Past, God has "Withdrawn", if you will, His Governing of that Portion of His Universe and DID NOT HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION OF "CHOOSING THOSE HE DID NOT SELECT", BECAUSE IN THE NEGATIVE SENSE OF LOOKING AT WHAT GOD DID AND DIDN'T DO, HE DID NOT HAVE TO BE INVOLVED AND DID NOT GOVERN SOMETHING THAT HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, i.e., SOME WEREN'T SELECTED, BECAUSE, THEYY HAD ALREADY NOT BEEN SELECTED, AND THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT.

 

[Ben1445]

You cut the phase that you call my "honesty", but for the sake of honesty, I believe we should read and review my whole sentence, with its very specific qualifiers.

Otherwise, I need to thank you for your dishonesty?


Then I am saying as I continue my stance in this same sentence, the following;
before I was rudely interrupted by someone who should obviously have better manners.

I appreciated your willingness to own a version of deism and determinism at the same time. I was not trying to make you look bad or be dishonest myself. I just appreciated your coming right out and saying it. I don’t agree with it. But I appreciate your honesty.