Unconditional Election

[Earth Wind and Fire]

winman: I am simply tired of Calvinists saying scripture does not mean what it says.

oh, poor, poor you.
So why'nt you take a break from the Board?
Maybe the Calvinists are just as tired of you talking like your view of Scripture is THE only view there is. hello ?
In my native language there is a phrase: ang yabang mo naman.
find a Filipino and ask him what it means, perfessor.

:laugh: going native on us Pinoy?!? :laugh:

 

[convicted1]

In my native language there is a phrase: ang yabang mo naman.
find a Filipino and ask him what it means, perfessor.

It don't mean a thang, if it ain't got that twang? Isn't that what it means?

Or is it "It don't mean a thang, if it ain't got that swang"? LOL


J/K with you Brother Tim. Glad to see u posting again. I was getting worried about you. I love you Brother.:love2::wavey::thumbsup::love2:

 

[billwald]

>Originally Posted by pinoybaptist
>winman: I am simply tired of Calvinists Originally Posted by pinoybaptist
winman: I am simply tired of Calvinists saying scripture does not mean what it says.

First you Dispensationalists told me that Jesus would return and/or they would be raptured in 1998, then 2000, now 12-20-2012. You all never "say scripture does not mean what it says?"

 

[Winman]

What was cut off NEVER BELEIVED in the first place. It was not that they once believed and then went into unbelief - they NEVER had believed. However, their unbelief, and their being cut off from the sphere from which God currently calls out a people did not change their unconditional election but rather demonstrated unconditional election because their TIME for belief had not yet arrived (Rom. 11:25-28) as that was still YET FUTURE:

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

Notice, it is those who CURRENTLY are "enemies for your sakes" who are the subjects of election still while in UNBELIEF as their TIME of election unto salvation has not yet occurred - that is "unconditinal election" in the strongest terms.


In contrast the Gentile nations were NEVER GOD'S ELECT nations but God had individual elect among them and God had simply turned from the Elect Nation of Israel during its period of unbelief but not turned from His election of them unto salvation which would occur after he had called all individual elect out of the gentile nations (Rom. 11:25).

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.





None of the elect "remnant" were cut off. The only sense that elect Israel as a nation was "cut off" is in regard to being the PRIMARY SOURCE from which God CURRENTLY calls out a people. If this cutting off had been permenant you would have a point but the whole passage denies such permenancy and concludes with God grafting them in "again" as a nation because of their election which is the greatest evidence for unconditional election rather than any argument against it.

Jn. 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

You can twist scripture any way you want, Paul told these believers "thou standest by faith", and warns these very same persons that they must continue in God's goodness or they ALSO shall be cut off.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

You can attempt to twist and pervert God's word any way you wish, I can read. These persons Paul was speaking to were believers, but Paul tells them not to be highminded, but fear lest God also spares not them. Then he tells them they must continue in God's goodness or they will also be cut off.

Then Paul tells these persons if those Jews did not remain in unbelief they could be graffed in again.

Election is based on faith, you must believe to be one of God's chosen, part of the chosen branch (Jesus). If you do not believe you will be cut off.

 

[Winman]

>Originally Posted by pinoybaptist
>winman: I am simply tired of Calvinists Originally Posted by pinoybaptist
winman: I am simply tired of Calvinists saying scripture does not mean what it says.

First you Dispensationalists told me that Jesus would return and/or they would be raptured in 1998, then 2000, now 12-20-2012. You all never "say scripture does not mean what it says?"

Show where I have ever predicted the date Jesus would return.

 

[Winman]

winman: I am simply tired of Calvinists saying scripture does not mean what it says.

oh, poor, poor you.
So why'nt you take a break from the Board?
Maybe the Calvinists are just as tired of you talking like your view of Scripture is THE only view there is. hello ?
In my native language there is a phrase: ang yabang mo naman.
find a Filipino and ask him what it means, perfessor.

iyong mga paa bumantot

 

[Van]

Under Calvin's model of Election, the believer had no choice in his or her matter of receiving the Holy Spirit regeneration. God caused the person to believe without any action at all taken by the individual.

For those here who do not agree with Calvin's Unconditional Election, what do you see in the scripture which causes you to reject Calvin's teaching on this subject? Or, what is your best argument against the Calvinist who declares Unconditional Election is a matter of scriptural fact?

What scripture must Calvin be disregarding or misinterpreting that is causing him to embrace his model of UE?

I am asking this because I am currently in a debate about this with a fellow brother in Christ from our local church and I would like to brush up on some of the arguments against this doctrine.

I have not read this thread, so if any of this is redundant, sorry.

Here is the basis of the Calvinism claim, we were chosen individually before we were created, thus before we had any characteristic upon which to base a conditional election. Arminianism differs with this view, and claims God foresaw who would autonomously choose to trust in Christ, and elected them before creation. Neither view is biblical.

Consider 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which says the Thessalonians were chosen for salvation, from the beginning, not before the beginning, through sanctification by the Spirit (we are chosen when God sets us apart in Christ) and faith in the truth (thus our election is conditioned upon God crediting our faith as righteousness.

So we have these opposing views, Ephesians 1:4 refers to our individual unconditional election before the beginning, and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 refers to our individual conditional election from the beginning. The election of Ephesians 1:4 refers to a corporate election, i.e. when God chose the Word to be His Lamb, He also chose corporately anyone subsequently redeemed. That is why this verse reads He chose us IN HIM before the foundation of the world.

Now lets consider the verses that say we are conditionally chosen. James 2:5 says God chooses the poor to this word, rich in faith, heirs to the promise of those who love God. Thus God chooses those who love God and are rich in faith. Yes many translations say to be rich in faith, but that is not in the text, and the addition alters what is being taught, i.e. conditional election based on faith.

Next, 1 Corinthians 1:26-30 says God chooses folks living in the world, i.e. during their lifetime, rather than before creation.

Next 1 Peter 2:9-10 says we lived without mercy, then obtained mercy. Therefore we were individually chosen during our lifetime, and not individually before creation.

Next Romans 11:5 says God is making His "gracious choice" today and in the way He chose those who had not bended their knees, i.e. people of faith.

 

[steaver]

I have not read this thread, so if any of this is redundant, sorry.

Here is the basis of the Calvinism claim, we were chosen individually before we were created, thus before we had any characteristic upon which to base a conditional election. Arminianism differs with this view, and claims God foresaw who would autonomously choose to trust in Christ, and elected them before creation. Neither view is biblical.

Consider 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which says the Thessalonians were chosen for salvation, from the beginning, not before the beginning, through sanctification by the Spirit (we are chosen when God sets us apart in Christ) and faith in the truth (thus our election is conditioned upon God crediting our faith as righteousness.

So we have these opposing views, Ephesians 1:4 refers to our individual unconditional election before the beginning, and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 refers to our individual conditional election from the beginning. The election of Ephesians 1:4 refers to a corporate election, i.e. when God chose the Word to be His Lamb, He also chose corporately anyone subsequently redeemed. That is why this verse reads He chose us IN HIM before the foundation of the world.

Now lets consider the verses that say we are conditionally chosen. James 2:5 says God chooses the poor to this word, rich in faith, heirs to the promise of those who love God. Thus God chooses those who love God and are rich in faith. Yes many translations say to be rich in faith, but that is not in the text, and the addition alters what is being taught, i.e. conditional election based on faith.

Next, 1 Corinthians 1:26-30 says God chooses folks living in the world, i.e. during their lifetime, rather than before creation.

Next 1 Peter 2:9-10 says we lived without mercy, then obtained mercy. Therefore we were individually chosen during our lifetime, and not individually before creation.

Next Romans 11:5 says God is making His "gracious choice" today and in the way He chose those who had not bended their knees, i.e. people of faith.

Thanks Van, very persuasive points.

 

[TCassidy]

Thanks Van, very persuasive points.

Only if you are brain dead.

 

[steaver]

Van, what is your take on 1Peter1:2?

 

[steaver]

From Calvin's pov, did Jesus misspeak here when He said they "would" not? Should He have said they "could" not?

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!" (Matt 23:37)

Afterall, why scold the Jews for not doing something, according to Calvin, they were incapeable of doing? Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[OldRegular]

From Calvin's pov, did Jesus misspeak here when He said they "would" not? Should He have said they "could" not?

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!" (Matt 23:37)

Afterall, why scold the Jews for not doing something, according to Calvin, they were incapeable of doing? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Did Calvin comment on this particular verse? If so it would be appropriate to supply a quotation and reference rather than speculate!

 

[OldRegular]

You can twist scripture any way you want, Paul told these believers "thou standest by faith", and warns these very same persons that they must continue in God's goodness or they ALSO shall be cut off.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Are you saying you believe one can lose their Salvation?

 

[Winman]

Are you saying you believe one can lose their Salvation?

I believe in OSAS, and believe there are many scriptures to support this. At the same time, there are scriptures which could be interpreted to say a person can lose salvation. This passage is one example. Anybody who denies this does not know the scriptures very well.

This passage concerns election, being part of "The Branch" which is Jesus (Zech 6:12). Jesus is "the Elect One". The only reason we are elect is because when we believe we are baptized into his body.

This passage shows one must believe to be elect, if you do not believe you will be broken off. Gentiles who believe are graffed in. No one's fate was determined before the foundation of the world, if those Jews who have been cut off abide not still in unbelief, they shall be graffed back in.

Paul calls these persons he is speaking to believers, he said of them, "thou standest by faith". He warns these same persons not to be highminded but fear. He tells them they must CONTINUE in God's goodness or they will also be cut off.

It is God's word, what does it say to you?

 

[Van]

1 Peter 1:2

Van, what is your take on 1Peter1:2?

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

who are chosen

2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit,to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.'

Peter is addressing born anew believers because we are in the world but not of the world, thus "aliens."

The born again believers have been chosen, elected, by God according to God's plan of redemption formulated before creation. Jesus was put on the cross also according to God's predetermined plan and foreknowledge. The Greek words translated as foreknow (foreknew, foreknown) and foreknowledge refer to something learned or formulated in the past, i.e. before creation to before the present, and this information is being utilized in the present. The Greek words have nothing to do with foreseeing the future.

"by the sanctify work of the Holy Spirit" describes how we are chosen, which is to be set apart in Christ. Paul teaches we are placed in Christ by the Holy Spirit who baptizes us into Christ.

God puts us spiritually in Christ to accomplish several spiritual actions, (1) separated from God we are spiritually dead, but together with Christ we are made spiritually alive, (2) we are baptized into Christ's death and undergo the circumcision of Christ where our body of flesh (sin) is removed, and (3)we arise in Christ a new creation, born anew from above and then (4) we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit after we have been "established in Christ." So to be sprinkled with His blood refers to our justification which results in God forgiving our sins including when we sin subsequently, thus making us eternally righteous by the righteous blood of Christ. As a born anew believer we are to obey and serve Christ, making disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that Christ commanded. We are ambassadors of Christ and this holy calling is described as the good works God has set before us.

As we trust in Christ and serve Him with all our heart, building up the body of Christ as is our measure of faith or sphere of service, Peter prays that we will have blessing from God and and follow Him obediently, thus being at peace with God.

That is my take.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe in OSAS, and believe there are many scriptures to support this. At the same time, there are scriptures which could be interpreted to say a person can lose salvation. This passage is one example. Anybody who denies this does not know the scriptures very well.

So anybody that does not agree with you simple does not know the scriptures? And you believe the scriptures contradict themselves as you believe they teach both OSAS and deny OSAS and so God is the author of confusion.

Have you ever heard of the hermeneutic principle that the unclear, the ambigous ought to be interpeted by the clear and unambiguous. You admit "here are scriptures which COULD BE INTERPRETED TO SAY" which means there is some room to wiggle.

John 6:37-39 and other such clear and unambiguous scriptures (Jn. 5:24; 10:26-28; etc.) teach OSAS without ambiguity.

Romans 11 is without question concerning THE ELECT NATION of Israel whereas Israel is set in contrast to the elect "remnant." You confuse them in your argument against OSAS. The remnant is the CURRENT elect that has already obtained salvation at the present time. They are NEVER said to have been cut off and NEVER said to have to be grafted back in again - that is OSAS.

In contrast to the elect "remnant" there is Elect Israel as a nation that has been cut off and will be grafted back in "again." They were in unbelief, they are in unbelief but because of unconditional election they will not remain in unbelief but will be grafted back again but presently that is not the case as they presently are "enemies of the gospel FOR YOUR SAKE" (Rom. 11:25-28). You are attempting to make Israel as a nation (not the PRESENT remnant) the basis of your argument against OSAS when in fact Israel has a nation has NEVER BEEN SAVED to this date. As a nation they NEVER believed. They are cutt off for "unbelief" in the sense that the WHOLE NATION rejected Jesus Christ which was consistent with their prior state of unbelief and treatment of God's prophets but now comes to a climax of unbelief in rejecting the Messiah. They were ALWAYS IN UNBELIEF but never to this extent that they are now "enemies of the gospel." So your example fails as any example used against OSAS must first be saved, must first be in belief but Israel NEVER has been saved, NEVER has been in belief always unbelief but never unbelief to this extent. Likewise the Gentiles as nations have never been saved always in unbelief. However, when they come to the extent of unbelief so that they admantly reject the gospel entirely as did Israel they too will be cut off and God will return to UNBELIEIVING Israel who will be brought to faith by unconditonal election as spelled out in Romans. 11:28 - enemies turned to faith.

So your whole analogy against OSAS is false. Israel NEVER was in beleif and so it is impossible to use an UNBELIEVER falling from faith to disprove OSAS.

So their cutting off and grafting in has nothing to do with election or salvation because nations are not saved and lost and then saved again and neither are individuals. The cutting off and grafting in has to do with all the EXTERNAL priviledges and promises obtained by being the focus of God's sphere of redemptive activity and those promises are listed in Romans 3:1; 9:5 which are found in the root (promises of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) or those things presently given to the church in Matthew 16:19, 18:18 - kingdom privileges (authority, house of God, oridinances, ministry, etc.).

The house of God, ordinances, ministries, etc. are now among the Gentiles as God's PRIMARY sphere of redemptive activity in calling out his elect which is the manifestation of FAITH from among the Gentiles just as previously the house of God, ordinances, ministries, etc. had been among Israel because Israel had been the PRIMARY sphere of redemptive activing in calling out his elect which the manfistation of FAITH from among Israe. When all the elect come in from among the Gentiles they no longer will stand "by faith" but will be cut off as God had cut off Israel.

There is nothing about individual salvation in this cutting off and grafting in again.

This passage concerns election, being part of "The Branch" which is Jesus (Zech 6:12). Jesus is "the Elect One". The only reason we are elect is because when we believe we are baptized into his body.

Being chosen in him was not made at the point of faith but before the world began (Eph. 1:4) and election is UNTO salvation not because of salvation (2 Thes. 2:13). You are simply ignoring the cause and consequence points in these texts as well as the time elements and that is what you must do to deny what these texts actually say and teach.

 

[pinoybaptist]

iyong mga paa bumantot

LOL. kasi may cachichas.

 

[Winman]

So anybody that does not agree with you simple does not know the scriptures? And you believe the scriptures contradict themselves as you believe they teach both OSAS and deny OSAS and so God is the author of confusion.

I didn't say that, I love the way you put words in people's mouths, another dishonest form of argument you use quite frequently.

All I am saying is that there are many scriptures which on first impression do seem to support the idea that a person can lose their salvation. This is one such passage, Hebrews 6 would be another. Anybody who claims there is no controversy does not know the scriptures.

Have you ever heard of the hermeneutic principle that the unclear, the ambigous ought to be interpeted by the clear and unambiguous. You admit "here are scriptures which COULD BE INTERPRETED TO SAY" which means there is some room to wiggle.

Yes, except I would not call this passage that ambiguous, it clearly says the Jews were cut off for unbelief and Paul warns these believers (he had just said they stood by faith) to beware lest they also be cut off.

John 6:37-39 and other such clear and unambiguous scriptures (Jn. 5:24; 10:26-28; etc.) teach OSAS without ambiguity.

Oh, I agree, I could tell you many more.

Romans 11 is without question concerning THE ELECT NATION of Israel whereas Israel is set in contrast to the elect "remnant." You confuse them in your argument against OSAS. The remnant is the CURRENT elect that has already obtained salvation at the present time. They are NEVER said to have been cut off and NEVER said to have to be grafted back in again - that is OSAS.

Nevertheless, Paul is directly warning believers to take heed and contiinue in God's goodness lest they also be cut off. He is not speaking of nations here but individuals.

In contrast to the elect "remnant" there is Elect Israel as a nation that has been cut off and will be grafted back in "again." They were in unbelief, they are in unbelief but because of unconditional election they will not remain in unbelief but will be grafted back again but presently that is not the case as they presently are "enemies of the gospel FOR YOUR SAKE" (Rom. 11:25-28). You are attempting to make Israel as a nation (not the PRESENT remnant) the basis of your argument against OSAS when in fact Israel has a nation has NEVER BEEN SAVED to this date. As a nation they NEVER believed. They are cutt off for "unbelief" in the sense that the WHOLE NATION rejected Jesus Christ which was consistent with their prior state of unbelief and treatment of God's prophets but now comes to a climax of unbelief in rejecting the Messiah. They were ALWAYS IN UNBELIEF but never to this extent that they are now "enemies of the gospel." So your example fails as any example used against OSAS must first be saved, must first be in belief but Israel NEVER has been saved, NEVER has been in belief always unbelief but never unbelief to this extent. Likewise the Gentiles as nations have never been saved always in unbelief. However, when they come to the extent of unbelief so that they admantly reject the gospel entirely as did Israel they too will be cut off and God will return to UNBELIEIVING Israel who will be brought to faith by unconditonal election as spelled out in Romans. 11:28 - enemies turned to faith.

I know all about Israel rejecting Jesus, I know in the tribulation many Jews will turn to Jesus. Tell me something I DON'T know.

So your whole analogy against OSAS is false. Israel NEVER was in beleif and so it is impossible to use an UNBELIEVER falling from faith to disprove OSAS.

No, Paul clearly warns these believers to fear. If Uncondtional Election is true, then there is no reason for any person to fear. If God has chosen you then you will irresistibly be saved. If God has chosen to pass you by, there is nothing you can do to be saved. Warnings are meaningless in your system, yet the scriptures are full of warnings. It is you that does not understand that these warning clearly refute your false doctrine.

So their cutting off and grafting in has nothing to do with election or salvation because nations are not saved and lost and then saved again and neither are individuals. The cutting off and grafting in has to do with all the EXTERNAL priviledges and promises obtained by being the focus of God's sphere of redemptive activity and those promises are listed in Romans 3:1; 9:5 which are found in the root (promises of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) or those things presently given to the church in Matthew 16:19, 18:18 - kingdom privileges (authority, house of God, oridinances, ministry, etc.).

The house of God, ordinances, ministries, etc. are now among the Gentiles as God's PRIMARY sphere of redemptive activity in calling out his elect which is the manifestation of FAITH from among the Gentiles just as previously the house of God, ordinances, ministries, etc. had been among Israel because Israel had been the PRIMARY sphere of redemptive activing in calling out his elect which the manfistation of FAITH from among Israe. When all the elect come in from among the Gentiles they no longer will stand "by faith" but will be cut off as God had cut off Israel.

There is nothing about individual salvation in this cutting off and grafting in again.

Being chosen in him was not made at the point of faith but before the world began (Eph. 1:4) and election is UNTO salvation not because of salvation (2 Thes. 2:13). You are simply ignoring the cause and consequence points in these texts as well as the time elements and that is what you must do to deny what these texts actually say and teach.

I didn't even read these parts of your post, you seem to think that if you say a thousand words that makes you correct. I do not have the patience to read a novel, if I wanted to read a book I would go to the library.

Try making short points. Your MANY words proves nothing, and quite frankly is VERY boring.

 

[The Biblicist]

I didn't say that, I love the way you put words in people's mouths, another dishonest form of argument you use quite frequently.

That was your implication and you admit it is the "first impression" and anyone reading your words would agree that is the implication

Yes, except I would not call this passage that ambiguous, it clearly says the Jews were cut off for unbelief and Paul warns these believers (he had just said they stood by faith) to beware lest they also be cut off.

It is very ambiguous. You cannot confuse the present "remnant" of believing elect with the nation of Israel which has NEVER believed. What has been cut off is UNBELIEVERS who NEVER believed. Hence, cutting off cannot possilby have anything to do with INDIVIDUAL salvation. Think it through! If cutting off UNBELIEVERS (who never believed) cannot lose a salvation they never had how in the world can cutting off Gentiles have anything to do with PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL faith?

His argument is that gentiles AS A PEOPLE have not yet come to "unbelief" in the sense that Israel did as a Nation. They stand "by faith" in this sense and in this sense only - they have not yet totally rejected the gospel as did Israel as a people. In that sense faith is still at work within Gentiles as a People but when the fullness of the gentile elect come in (Rom. 11:25) they will come to definant unbelief AS A PEOPLE and God will turn away from them as he did Israel.

Cutting off and grafting in have NOTHING to do with INDIVIDUAL personal salvation. Israel did not believe as a nation - it was already in unbelief and it is was cut off when that unbelief climaxed in rejection of its Messiah. No saved, then lost and then saved scenario at all! No argument here against OSAS.

This text has NOTHING to do with INDIVIDIUAL salvat

 

[Winman]

Look Biblicist, I will try to explain this in a way that is so simple that even YOU can understand. This passage in Romans 11 utterly refutes Unconditional Election.

You Calvinists crack me up. You guys all think you are so smart. You have all your Reformed books and scholars. You guys think you are WAY smarter than non-Cals.

I hate to hurt you feelings, but this is not true. You guys are not smart, and you are not logical. If you were truly smart and truly logical you would easily spot the inconsistencies in your doctrine. Calvinism is plain STUPID. It really is, and once you see that you will agree with me.

So here we go:

If Unconditional Election is true, whether speaking of individuals or nations, then no warning is necessary or meaningful for ANY person or nation.

Unconditional Election teaches that persons or nations are chosen by God for his own mysterious reasons. It is not due to faith or good works or any virtue in the man or nation.

Now, I am not a Calvinist, but I was pretty accurate there wasn't I?

So why would Paul warn a person or nation to CONTINUE in God's goodness? In your system you have no say whatsoever in the matter. If God has unconditionally chosen you, you will irresistibly believe. If God passes you by, you cannot possibly believe.

Isn't that correct?

So why warn persons to continue in God's goodness? If God has decided to cut off the Gentiles, there is nothing they can do about it. If God has decided to graff the Jews back in, there is nothing you can do about it.

Can't you see that? These warnings by Paul PROVE Calvinism and Unconditional Election FALSE!!

Someday you are going to realize just how stupid and illogical your system is. You really don't get it. I would have seen through this when I was 7 years old, and I am just a normal person.