Jacob,
The others, well...they're doomed from the womb. This seems to fly in the face of personal responsibility and genuine offers to accept the gift of salvation.
Were it not for election Jacob, then we would ALL be doomed. It is as simple as that. We would all be irrevocably in Adam. We would be condemned witout hope. But we would be so justly. God is still just in holding us accountable for the fact that all sin and fall short of the glory of God, and having done so in Adam.
In other words if no one were elect, condemnation would be on the basis of accountability and responsibility for sin.
Election does not change that.
Now as to the genuineness of the call to salvation, recall that genuineness is determined by the sincertiy of the one issuing the call. God is not insincere in making a general call.
So what then does a rejection of the general call add to a person's condemnation? Prctically speaking, nothing. Even without it they would be condemned. Rejecting the general call does not put the final nail in their coffin, but simply confirms that they are in the coffin.
Yelsew,
How does one human recognize whether or not another is "elect"?
Election is not about being able to be assured about anyone else other than yourself. An elct person knows they are elect. They cannot know for certain about anyone else. We can testify to the Spirit indwelling ourselves. We cna have a good idea about others, but it won't approach the certainty that comes from the Hly Spirit testifying to our spirit that we are children of God.
Ray,
I checked your last five posts and you only had one general reference to Romans chapter four. As I said previously you offer to us 'the Calvinistic instruction' but with no basis in Scripture.
I can see I am not going to budge you from your misrepresentation. That's fine with me.
My Canadian brother, you said, 'They need to be reminded that Election is NOT based on anything in them. From my perspective this makes His alleged selection even more nebulous and strange. It is neither based on something allegedly 'good' in sinners by way of human characteristics, nor something 'bad' in the sinner that He wishes to change or refine in them. Again, students of the Word are to apparently swallow this without any Scriptural background.
Except Romans 9, and the OT which it draws from.
Your posts, sadly to my viewing, do not impress me as you understanding the New Testament very well. I may be wrong. I am, however, impressed that you have argued some of the points of John Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion."
This confirms in my mind your inability to address the issues. (I note that this psost is yet ANOTHER dodge and does not address the vital points I have raised to you.) It also confirms to me you lack of understnding of both the Bible and Calvanism, the moreso since I have not read Calvin at all, and have derived my theology in this area from the study of the New Tetstament. Biblical Theology got me to this point; that is how I know and can see your prsuppositions and the way you eisegete rather than exgete passages.
I regret that you are unwilling to get beyond the superficial in this. But I will not concern myself with it any longer. I wil simply remind you when appropriate of the challenge offered to you to justify asumptions you oobviously bring to the text and your failure to take it up. I will simply say "you had the opportunity to address this issue". It will be short hand for "you had your opportunity to address the assumptions underlying your reasonig from the Scriptures and you failed to justify them so they, along with the conclusions you base on them, will not be accepted as legitimate."
Just so you know.
