To Godrulz:
godrulz said:
Corporate election is not based on one proof text looked at through the lens of Calvinism.
Of course not. It's based on the teaching of the entire corpus of scripture, which you seem happy to contradict by your bald assertion.
godrulz said:
I am satisfied that election is corporate and can be resisted.
Then you are satisfied to contradict the obvious and ineluctable teaching of God's word on individual election.
godrulz said:
... God's predestines that all who believe will become part of the people of God (Israel; Church).
By using the word "all," you've contradicted your own claims. "All" is a plural pronoun, referring to many, not a singular collective.
godrulz said:
This contradicts the weight of biblical evidence that shows the gospel is freely preached to all men, not just a so-called elite elect class, ...
Straw man, GR. I've never claimed that the preaching of the gospel is limited to an elite class.
godrulz said:
... with the expectation that they can believe or reject the convincing/convicting of the Spirit.
Only those whom the Father gave to Jesus heard the Holy Spirit (Jn 6:37-40). The Spirit can only be heard by, and thereby only bring conviction to those who have already been regenerated. See Jn 3:6-8. When he came to Jesus by night, Nicodemus had already been regenerated, which is why he could hear the Spirit (See Jn 6:8). Not all of elect Israel had yet been regenerated, so there were those who had not yet heard the Spirit.:
Jn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee [i.e., Nicodemus, singular pronoun], Ye [i.e. all elect Israel, plural pronoun] must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou [Nicodemus] hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
godrulz said:
This does not rely on proof texts out of context, ...
I'm not the one contradicting scripture, GR.
godrulz said:
... but is the self-evident revelation of God's impartial love for all men, not wanting anyone to perish.
Self-evident? Do you even know what you're talking about? I think you need to study this term and then come back and use it correctly.
godrulz said:
His plan of redemption is efficacious for all who believe.
True, and those who believe are the ones given by the Father to Christ.
godrulz said:
... All are able to believe.
No, Romans 8:7 says the carnal mind is unable to believe. Those without ears to hear are unable to hear unless the Spirit first gives them the ability to hear. The blind are unable to see unless the Spirit first gives them sight. This is the teaching of scripture, which you flatly contradict with your unsupported "self-evident" assertions.
godrulz said:
... Those who love darkness more than light will remain condemned and perish.
Why do you suppose they love darkness more than light, GR?
godrulz said:
God decrees that those who reject Him will perish. He does not decree that person x will believe and that person y will not believe.
That's not what the scriptures say. All those verses I cited above show you that God elects individuals. You maintain your claim in contradiction to God's Word.
godrulz said:
... This would negate responsibility and any sense of love, relationship, freedom.
Only according to your existentialist humanism. According to Scripture, there is clear and comprehensible compatibility between responsibility and exhaustive sovereignty (redundancy intended).
godrulz said:
It is God's sovereign choice to give us such freedom, so don't bother saying this makes man more powerful than God or brings God down to our level.
It is humanism. It is the sin of Adam. It is the lie of Lucifer. You're in good company, GR.
godrulz said:
God's election can also involve service/mission, not individual salvation.
I agree, which accounts for the cases of election in which individuals perish. But that is not what Paul is talking about in the passages you're satisfied to contradict.
godrulz said:
... Israel was called for a purpose. She did not always fulfill her destiny.
I agree, but there is a redemptive calling and election for individuals that Peter talks about in 2Pe 1:10 and Paul talks about in Eph 1:14. This is what your unfounded statements so blatantly contradict.
godrulz said:
... If your hyper-sovereignty views were correct, we would expect universalism to be true.
On the contrary, GR, God chooses to hate some (most) and to love others. That's not universalism.
godrulz said:
... There is no good reason for God to save some, but damn others that He could save if only He wanted to.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Since godrulz can't fathom a "good reason for God to save some, but damn others," it cannot be true. This, again, is the lie of Lucifer: "
Hath God said that He raised Pharaoh up for a good reason? ("... that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." Ro 9:17)
Hath God said that He fitted the vessels of wrath for a good reason? ("... willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory ..." Ro 9:22,23)." According to Godrulz, there could be
no good reason for God to save the elect of Israel, but damn Pharaoh; there could be
no good reason for God to fit vessels of wrath for destruction and vessels of honor for glory; there could be
no good reason for God to save some, but to damn others; just as Lucifer convinced Adam that there could be
no good reason for God to withhold from them the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So, like Lucifer and Adam, Godrulz presumes to know better than Paul, better than Moses and better than God Himself.
All according to God's decrees, obviously,
Jim