Adam's Fall = Total Depravity? ; Hardened = Non-Elect?

[Skandelon]

I can't say that God elected to save a nation. It was the people of a nation. Salvation is a relationship.

Election goes beyond leaders as you want to limit it. Yes, it includes leaders as well. But in your statement above you said..."He chose the nation of Nineveh". Was this only leaders? I feel it was more.

I didn't say He elected to save the nation of Nineveh. I said he elected for them to receive God's revelation. This is the same type of election of Israel. They weren't elected to be saved (otherwise they all would have been saved), they were elected to receive God's special revelation so they "might see, hear, understand and believe." The messengers are individually chosen to take the message and God will use the necessary means to convince them to do this (burning bush, blinding light, big fish - all of which seem unnecessary in a system where the 'effectual call' of God is being employed)

Please notice Eph 1...
THE Saints....He chose. That means all believers, not just leaders.

Read Adam Clarke commentary on Eph 1, these posts are getting too long to try and answer every passage. If you have a specific question about it let me know.

Yet Scripture would disagree with you, as Paul speaks of individuals but includes the words.."For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion (pity) on whom I will have compassion."

And as I have explained, the interpretation of this passage depends on the perspective with which you approach it. Does it mean as you suggest, "I will have mercy on individuals who I have chosen to have mercy." Or does it mean, "I will have mercy on all people (even the unclean Gentiles) by grafting them in the olive tree (i.e. sending the message of reconciliation by which they might see, hear, understand and repent.") Either way, by effectual application or mere invitation, God is showing mercy on whom he wills to show mercy. This verse doesn't settle our contention. Do you understand what I'm saying?

But please notice what Moses had asked before....

All the PEOPLE were not leaders, now were they?

Context is king.

I never said all the people were leaders. Please, please, please, try to understand my perspective even if you don't agree with it. Israel was the elect nation of God in that they were chosen to receive His divine revelation. Therefore, up to this point in history everyone thought that by simply being a descendant of Abraham that made you "people of God." You and I both agree that Paul is debunking that claim.

You quoted these verses....

the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;

11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again

These verses come from Chapter 10. Now I wonder if you have taken the time to fully study the flow of the text.

Actually they come from chapter 9, 10 and 11, so now I wonder if you have studied the flow. Let's not insult each other by suggesting the other hasn't studied it. We are debating from different perspectives. I want you to understand my perspective, which I've not seen evidence of as of yet.

I agree. But the context has changed from election. right?

Well, that would depend on if you understand election like a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist, wouldn't it? This is why I wonder if you understand my perspective. You are fine at stating your perspective, with which we are both aware, but when it comes to addressing our points of contention you always make statements as if you don't understand my perspective.

indeed. And who believes? The elect.

correct. (case and point)

Right you are. And who leaves their unbelief..(no one seeks after God Romans 3)

We are not talking about mankind's initiative to seek after God, we are talking about man's ability to respond to a God actively seeking them. Jesus said, "I've come to seek and save that which is lost." Proving that you can't phone your friend is not proof that you can't answer the phone when your friend phones you. Understand?

But there is a new race that will (Chapter 5).

Yes. We both agree that the "new race" is the race of believers, we differ on the means by which they become believers, so once again this doesn't address any of our points of contention and our posts get longer and longer.

God elects...(Chapter 9).....Men now believes....(chapter 10)......both jew and greek....(chapter 11)

Its rather clear...right?

CRYSTAL CLEAR!

 

[Skandelon]

Jarthur,

From the passage we are discussing, what do you believe the "Olive Tree" represents in Paul's analogy?

 

[olegig]

I meant to reply to this, but forgot.

No worries, I certainly don't wish to interfer with the interesting ongoing conversation you are having.

Study church history and you will find that evangelism efforts comes after calvinism is tought.

I might be inclined to contribute the large evangelical movement of that time to the printing press and a widely available Bible supplied to folks in their native tongue.
Its one of those cause and effect things.

Again, if you were to READ Calvin, maybe you MAY like him. Those that do not, cannot deny he was one that believed in sharing the gospel to the lost.

I'm more interested in the affect it has on others and how it has evolved to the present effect it has in relation to actual scripture.

Again, these few statements need not be replied for I don't wish to interfer with the ongoing discussion.