After I answer your question, maybe you can tell me why after I showed you from the Bible that God DOES indeed change (contrary to your statement) why you changed subjects so abruptly.

Now, to answer you question:

I believe that in the same fashion that God unconditionally elected me unto full time Christian service to be a light in Las Vegas, he has unconditionally elected Israel to be his special people to be a light unto the other nations. This is clearly stated in the Abrahamic Covenant.

You have already stated that their election had nothing to do with salvation so I do not understand how it would prove the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election without falling prey to the usual error of equivocation. It's the apples and oranges problem again.

The dehvastating truth is that God did not unconditionally elect anyone in the OT unto salvation and neither did he in the NT.

Can you ever stick to one topic?

Any time you are presented with the dehvastating truth, you guys switch the subject.

R. K. Borill wrote:
WMI,
No where do Calvinists say that the "Holy Spirit" can't be resisted. Men by nature are stiffnecked and uncircumcized in mind and ears.

So do you believe that the Holy Spirit can be resisted?

Discerning Believer wrote:
I am speaking to the doctrine of unconditional election period. The God of the Old Testament chose the Israelites to be His covenant people, yet not all were justified by faith (saved), yet they all had the same rights and priviledges to believe God as did their father Abraham.

You have fallen into the trap of equivocation.

It is quite obvious that the election speaking of the Israelites had nothing to do with salvation had nothing to do with their salvation. Even you have confessed that in your last post.

This serves to prove once again, that the mere mention of election does not equal unconditional election. It may be conditional, presidential, or something else which can be determine by the context.

If that is what you mean, then I do not see where the Bible would even hint to that.

Try again.

________________________________________
Some believe in a heaven that removes them from pain and suffering.

So how is that any different?

Unless you believe in a works salvaton that requires people to suffer before they go to heaven.

You may want to rethink that one.

It sounds like you are the usual Calvinists full of cliche's but bankrupt of any simple declarative statement to back up your position. The same bunch that likes to associate us with the Catholics when they were the one's that came out of the Catholic church and still kept some of their nasty habits.

Discerning Believer wrote:
Does He not promise that His elect will be saved? Nowhere is it promised that the saved will be elected.

Genesis 6:6 wrote:
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exodus 32:14 wrote:
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

I Samuel 15:35 wrote:
...the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Psalm 106:45 wrote:
And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies.

I am still waiting for the verse that states that God has unconditionally elected an arbitrary few to be saved.

R. K. Borill wrote:
You wrongly assume that regeneration never occurred before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I suppose David wrongly cried in Psalm 51:11 after his adulterous sin and murder, "Cast me not from thy presence and take not thy Holy Spirit from me." . . .How stupid David.

For a Calvinist, that's quite an arminian twist.

Conditional Promise
Unconditional Promis

and (lol)

Doubtful (promise)

Ha!

The F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist.
_______________________________________

I advise you to look up one of the thousands of dictionaries existing today. The KJV is obviously using the arcahic meaning of the word which demonstrates the ability or power. The most fundamental meaning of the word "might" is "to be able to."

One moment...

Ok here ya go for your convenience:

I still have not found the dictionary where world means "elect."

Razer Ramon wrote:
The issue was my claim that the word depart was equal to divorce in 1 Cor ...The point of posting the verse was to show his statement was in error.

If in I Corinthians 7:11 depart means "divorce" (fat chance, but to make a point) then what you have is Paul calling the man her husband when in fact he is no longer her husband. What you have in play here is "separation" (the literal meaning of the word BTW) not divorce.

Secondly you have the dilemma of God permitting divorce but not allowing anyone to remarry. Now that's a knotted up of self-contradiction that only a Calvinist can come up with.

Frankinsensenotmonster wrote:
Unchristian Disputes.
The longer I live, the more I see of the vanity and sinfulness of our unchristian disputes; they eat up the very vitals of religion.

Frankinsensenotmonster wrote:
CALVINIST John Newton's hymn AMAZING GRACE has more GOSPEL TRUTH in the first line than sweet JD and Yamil have published here in a 1000 POSTS...

Because of that, I can forgive him for his imperfection: for sowing the seed of what has grown today to be nothing more than a knotted up ball of self-contradiction. I speak to the Calvinism of today, not of yesterday. It just happens to be that today's Calvinism is more popular of the hyper type. Nevertheless, I have had the priviledge of meeting several Calvinists here that believe that God loves the world. Unfortunately, they received their fair share of persecution. To those Calvinist, the true Calvinist, I salute them.