don't deny the negative aspects of unconditional election.[/qutoe]What is a negative aspect of unconditional election??? I don't know what that is, unless you are referring to double predestination which most Calvinists reject anyway.
So then our whole argument (like Dave Hunt and others) can be dismissed because you don't like when your views are reflected back to you by someone who rejects them.
Actually what we don't like is when people like Dave Hunt and others make up stuff, create straw men, misrepresent by quoting out of context, and then claim to be an objective source. Your arguments are dismissed because either 1) they do not address what we actually believe or 2) they are out of line with Scripture. Hunt was guilty of both, as well as logical and historical fallacies, and as well as misrepresenting what people believe by slicing and dicing their quotes in the manner of GA Riplinger.
...so what it appears, is that you read the Scripture, saw where there was a call to all, and people could accept or reject "if they want to", and on the other hand, came across the passages that appear to teach total inability and unconditional election, and adopted a view that happened to be closer to Calvinism because of agreement with those first two points.
Actually, I read where Scripture explicitly affirms that God works all things after the counsel of his own will and began to wrestle through the implications of it. At the time, it had to do with something very specific in my life and I realized that if God was not in control of all things then he was not in control of anything. From there the rest of the Scriptures just fell into line.
Our view is that the scriptures used to teach those points are easily misinterpreted,
They certianly are and their use in support of Arminianism bears that out.
and to the more hard to understand concepts of how God works in time with election, or calling vs. preterition or blinding (John 6, etc) etc., should be interpreted in light of the clearer scriptures teaching God's offer to all.
But you end up here with a contradiction, and a position that is no better than ours. I have often said the only substantive difference between your position and ours is not the outcome, but merely that God is not in control in your position. The Scriptures on election, calling, blinding, etc, are explicit. Christ's words are explicit. The words of the apostles in the epistles are explicit. It takes real work and a precommitment to a position to get around that.
You may not agree with our interpretations, but then you cannot say we do not use scripture.
I have not said that you do not use Scripture. I have merely questioned the manner in which you do use it.
What you're doing is calling the ones on calling and election the clearest, and just fusing together this "tension", and then, dare I say, "emphasizing" one side at one time, and then the other side at another time. This is what creates so much frustration.
I am saying that the verses on calling and election only make sense in our view. In your view, calling and election have no real place. I don't deny some tension. But neither can I deny the explicit nature of the material either.
