Chosen by God - A study in Election

Lol. It seems to me that criticizing my posts is the best you can do at formalizing doctrine.
Anyhoo. Eph 1, Rom9, Rom 11,

Rewriting the Bible are we? Let's hope you're not leading anybody astray.

You keep abusing the word "harmonize" when you've displayed exactly what you mean by that. Change word meanings where it doesn't suit your doctrine, insist on the "iron clad" nature of your doctrine, and take tidbits that can be twisted and force-fit to your doctrine out of context. You don't use a consistent approach because you seek to preserve your doctrine at all cost.

Lol. It seems to me that criticizing my posts is the best you can do at formalizing doctrine.
Anyhoo. Eph 1, Rom9, Rom 11,

Rewriting the Bible are we? Let's hope you're not leading anybody astray.

It does not matter whether you quoted Calvin or not since you hold to his doctrines. But you missed the point of my post altogether because you did not read what Calvin wrote.

HE ACTUALLY REFUTED YOU, AND HIMSELF, AND REFORMED THEOLOGY in those two short paragraphs. Did you get that?

Are you gonna sit here all night and criticize every word I write? Why don't you think for yourself for a change and actually do some of your own research and Bible study?

Frankly my back hurts from carrying you around on it for all of dozens these pages.

Oh well I guess some people are leaders and some people are followers eh?

I have never read Calvin's commentaries. How the world can I hold his supposed doctrines?

You persist with the same proof texts when they've already been addressed. Romans 9-11 is discussing the Jewish people as a collective and explaining how God remains just while transitioning from the nation of Israel as His elect to the body of Christ. It is not speaking of particular election but collective election, which you would understand if you understood the central question of the book of Romans.

Ephesians 1 is a doxology, it's purpose is not to set doctrine but to praise God. Therefore it would be highly unnatural to speak of man's end in salvation, yet it states that man must hear and then believe. It does not say "when you heard and God caused you to believe" but attributes the belief to the individual themselves. So even in your proof text there is reason to reject your doctrine.

You missed the point again. However you have clearly promoted unconditional election (U from TULIP) since this is what you said earlier. And that is indeed Calvin's theology:

"It is double predestination that is a false doctrine. Election is however boilerplate. [meaning that it is embedded in Scripture] It is clear from Rom 9 that God is not choosing those to be damned. Why? God does not need to......they are condemned already (John 3:18)." [Which is a dodge]

And in my quotations from Calvin regarding John 1:29 (above), it was clear that Calvin himself REFUTED you, himself, and Reformed Theology regarding election. Do you still not get it, or are you being obtuse because you have nowhere to run and hide?

You missed the point again. However you have clearly promoted unconditional election (U from TULIP) since this is what you said earlier. And that is indeed Calvin's theology:

"It is double predestination that is a false doctrine. Election is however boilerplate. [meaning that it is embedded in Scripture] It is clear from Rom 9 that God is not choosing those to be damned. Why? God does not need to......they are condemned already (John 3:18)." [Which is a dodge]

And in my quotations from Calvin regarding John 1:29 (above), it was clear that Calvin himself REFUTED you, himself, and Reformed Theology regarding election. Do you still not get it, or are you being obtuse because you have nowhere to run and hide?

Calvinism has hijacked the words, “chose”, “chosen”, “elect”, “election” and “predestinate” and perverted and denied the true definition.

The true definition is NOT “chose”, “chosen”, “elect”, “election” for salvation.

When the Bible talks about being “chosen” or “elect” or “election”, it is referring to individuals who have willingly believed, NOT

forcibly believed the gospel of John 3:16 and are saved that are “chosen”/”elected” AFTER salvation.

I have never read Calvin's commentaries. How the world can I hold his supposed doctrines?

Calvinism has hijacked the words, “chose”, “chosen”, “elect”, “election” and “predestinate” and perverted and denied the true definition.

The true definition is NOT “chose”, “chosen”, “elect”, “election” for salvation.

When the Bible talks about being “chosen” or “elect” or “election”, it is referring to individuals who have willingly believed, NOT

forcibly believed the gospel of John 3:16 and are saved that are “chosen”/”elected” AFTER salvation.

I can assure A. W. Pink has...... along with all his Calvinist buddies.

So people who have denied reading John Calvin have actually read far more than they are willing to admit.

What you propose is complete and utter nonsense.
The core issue with Romans 9 and Romans 11 is God's sovereign choice aka ELECTION (and the lack thereof!) and unbelief. And to say that Ephesians ch 1 is merely a doxology with no relevant content amounts to the wild ravings of a lunatic apostate. Which at this point I truly believe that you are! Yes at this point I am very comfortable in saying you are in fact an apostate.

Rom 9:11
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—

Rom 11:5
So then also, in the present time, there has been a remnant according to the election of grace.

Go ahead, make a fool of yourself and deny that election even so much as mentioned in Romans.

In any kind of a debate forum Arthur W. Pink would destroy me, annihilate you, humiliate Bbrdrd, and mop the floor with Nehemiah6.

For no other reason than he knows exactly what he's talking about.

In any kind of a debate forum Arthur W. Pink would destroy me, annihilate you, humiliate Bbrdrd, and mop the floor with Nehemiah6.

For no other reason than he knows exactly what he's talking about.

Sounds like you're placing your trust in a man's abilities rather than God. Regardless of his stature, I suspect a child would thwart all of Pink's knowledge since Pink teaches blasphemous lies about the God who chooses the weak to shame the strong.

I take your rejection as a badge of honor.

As for Romans 9-11, it is God's sovereign purpose at issue but the quotes Paul uses and the lead up in Romans 1-8 make it clear that Paul is speaking to "children of Abraham" about why they have been displaced, and how God has chosen to show mercy to the gentiles through their rejection. Paul is explaining how this has been the plan from the beginning. God's 'purpose of election" is referring to the election of the Jews rather than an election unto salvation.

As for Ephesians not being useful for doctrine, that's a twisting of what I have actually stated. It is simply that the original purpose of being a doxology must be understood as the principle meaning rather than imposing doctrine onto the text and taking that doxology to justify it.