Does the sovereignty of God nullify the grace of God?

I don't blame God for anything, and never have. That's your poor understanding of what I'm actually saying.
From Romans 1 we know mankind is without excuse before God. In Romans 9 we find it is man who fits himself for destruction. So to say I blame God is false.
Further, the Bible teaches that when salvation does take place, it is God who has instigated the process in a multitude of ways.
What I am asking, and what few seem to want to explore, is since God could save everyone, what does it mean that He doesn't? And in each person's opinion, do they believe it would be better for some to be saved or all?
No one is under any compunction to answer. I'm just asking questions. But I do find it curious that those who do respond belittle, make false assumptions and accusations, imply simplicity, and yet, somehow, never actually answer the question.

Always good to read your comments about the scriptures Magenta. I did a career carrying the mail, and have been retired longer that I worked. I did not have a knowledge of the doctrine of Christ until I was 62 years old. I am now 89 years old. With that said, I will try to commit on your statements.

There are many people, I believe, in this world, that do not believe that there is a spiritual God. they are, probably from all walks of life, some being very educated in worldly things, such as astrologers, scientists, etc, that believe humanity evolved from the ape, others believing in the big bang theory, etc.

I believe people, such as these, comprise the natural man, and do not love a spiritual God that they cannot discern, thinking it to be foolishness.

My understanding of the scriptures is that believing spiritual things is a product of having been born again of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and not the cause of the natural man believing in spiritual in order to be born again.

I think Eph 2:1-5 makes it clear that the natural man/woman is spiritually dead at the time that God, by his grace, quickens them to their new spiritual life.

This question comes up frequently about "why is preaching necessary if God has already predestined them to be adopted as his children, and promised the an inheritance of eternal heaven"

To explain this, will involve quite a few more scriptures, so bear with me, if you have the time.

I believe the scriptures to teach that Jacob/Israel (God changed Jacob's name to be called Israel, Gen 32:27-28, and I believe that Jacob/Israel is spiritual Israel.

Spiritual Israel, at one point, turned away from God and began to worship idols, resulting in God blinding their eye's to understand the truth of Christ's doctrine, but they can be grafted back in by repenting, and coming unto a knowledge of doctrine truth. Disobedient Israel did not lose their promise of an eternal inheritance of heaven, but they did lose their fellowship with God, until they repent. I believe only those people whom God has exchanged their heart of stone to a fleshy heart that can be "pricked" to feel spiritual guilt, will repent.

Zeph 3:11-13 explains this fact that God left in the mist of disobedient Israel, (lost sheep of the household of Jacob/Israel) a remnant of Jacob/Israel, that he has revealed the truths about Jesus, and what he accomplished for his chosen people. Thus the reason for preaching is to the lost sheep of the household of Jacob/Israel in hopes that some of them might be saved (delivered) from their ignorance of righteousness of God.

I believe that Acts 2:37 has a part in this, and also Rom 10:1-3. along with many other scriptures.

Sorry about my lengthy post. I hope I didn't lose you, or confuse you. I love to defend, what I think is the same doctrine that Jesus taught, and am willing to discuss it with you further.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer. I'm not asking about what someone believes concerning salvation. I'm asking if you believe it is better for some to get saved or all to get saved.

I see some sense in what you have said, but the fact remains, that the natural man has no desire to know anything about spiritual things, in fact, he cannot know them, and thinks them to be foolishness.

You still need to rightly divide the salvation(deliverance) scriptures. Most of those who have been born again and are saved (delivered) eternally, need to be saved (delivered) from their ignorance of a knowledge of the truth, while they are hear on earth.

Preaching to the natural man would be preaching to someone that does not have ears to hear spiritual things, because they are not God's sheep (John 10:26-29)

Well said.

Jesus defines eternal life as to know the true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent. John 17:3

If God makes His true self known through His sacrifice of Himself on the cross, and someone rejects that revelation as a revelation of the true God, they reject salvation. Even a child can understand the sacrifice of Jesus for sins on the cross. God has not made faith difficult because He wants all to know Him, i.e. to have eternal life. But not all take an attitude to that sacrifice that reveals God and Jesus to them in it, so that they begin a relationship with them.

You said the person who ends up in hell for rejecting the revelation of God's true self in Christ on the cross would at that point wish God had saved him without his consent. That person is blaming God for their now being in Hell, because He did not unilaterally make Him believe that the cross and Jesus reveals the true God. That assumes a determinist God, God is not a determinist though.

I agree with most of your posts, but I have a concern about your statement in this post. Are you saying that God wants all mankind to have eternal life?

Sorry, you need to ignore my post #270. I thought I was addressing Cameron.

I couldn't possibly defend a doctrine introduced by a mad man in the 1800s 😬

So sorry to hear of your battle with cancer. My wife had breast cancer 40 plus years ago, and thank the Lord, she has been cancer free sense then. God has richly blessed both of our lives with longevity. About 5 years ago my wife was told by her doctor that he had detected a growth in her chest that measured so much in with and length, and wanted her to come back the following Monday to take a closer look.

We, along with the church, prayed for her situation, and when Monday's procedure took place, there was no sign of a growth, Thank the Lord.

I pray that your healing will be speedy, and with comfort.

I'm glad you've made it and I know what you've been through.

well I haven't said as much to anyone here. but I've just spent 9 months nursing my wife who got diagnosed with cancer.

Yesterday she was told the cancer is gone.

For 6 weeks leading up to chemo and radiotherapy I kept her in ketosis, and for 6 weeks during chemo and radio therapy everyday I kept her in ketosis, so a total of 3 months i kept her in a moderate state of ketosis

Where by the body converts food in to ketones. And not glucose.

Well she's just had the 3 months scan after the treatment finished 3 months ago and the scans confirms it's gone 😊

So now it's happy days 😊

Eternal life isn't dealing with the mechanics of salvation, but the purpose and condition of salvation. And it is not what you described. Knowing God is much different than believing things about God. It is knowing God intimately and experientially.
To show the difference, I'll share a story. In the old west in the US, there were multiple times more men than women. So "mail-order brides" came to exist. And one might imagine someone sending off for a bride and sending a letter asking the young lady about herself. And perhaps her reply was that she was a good cook, she keeps a clean house, and she loves nature. So now the gentleman knows some things about his future wife.
The day comes when the young lady arrives, the two are married, and hurry back to the ranch to consummate their nuptials.
The next morning, the man awakes to a cornucopia of delightful aromas. He goes to the dining table to find a plate loaded with eggs, bacon, sausage, and biscuits, and a hot cup of coffee. His wife had said she was a good cook, but now he KNOWS she is a good cook, having experienced it for himself.
He grabs a few biscuits, kisses his wife, and heads out to the back forty. Upon returning home that evening and walking in the door, his jaw drops. The house is pristine. His home had never been so clean. She had said she kept a clean home, but now he KNEW it was so because he had experienced it.
After dinner, the newlyweds went for a walk. She comments on the beauty of the land and stars, her enjoyment of the fresh air and wide open space. She had said she enjoyed nature, but now he KNEW it to be so because he was witness to her enjoyment.

Reading things in a letter didn't provide knowing. Knowing is the experimental confirmation of what is written, whether that is in a letter from a perspective bride or from God. Eternal life is KNOWING God intimately through experience. It isn't that things are said to be true, but experiencing the things that are said to be true.

I do not fail to see anything especially your sad attempt at claiming Romans 1:19- are about Christians. If you think people can follow God + be in a classification as an abomination to God is enough for me to realize you don't understand much of anything concerning our God.

I agree. Knowing God is much deeper than believing things about God.

But they would never have met to deepen that "knowing about" into "knowing" unless the bride had described herself to the potential to-be husband and he had valued the qualities she revealed she had. If he had valued these less than the ability to make money or fix broken machinery, he would have rejected from the start developing a relationship with her.

Regardless, your question was essentially whether it is more loving to A. give the bride the choice of her husband, or B. for the would-be husband to kidnap the bride without her consent in order for him later, after consummating the marriage, to win her over. I would say option A.

The first part is an assumption. God doesn't pursue people because He finds something in them that is desirable. The opposite is true. He pursues them in spite of what is true of them. His love is unconditional.
The example I gave was only to lend understanding of eternal life. It wasn't meant to be inclusive of all that eternal life consists in. And it was merely in response to your line of questioning.
Second, your characterization of my question implies things into my question that weren't there. My question wasn't about forcing anyone. You came up with that all on your own.
Did God force you to repent and believe? Why would it be necessary for God to compel anyone in saving everyone?
So my question again is...is it more loving to save some or save all?
You don't have to answer. In fact, I prefer that to you giving answers to questions I haven't asked or changing my question.

I didn't mention anything about "forcing" anyone. Why are you offended by a response I did not give?