Isn't this a logical argument?

[rojoloco]

I am sorry, but you call yourself a Preacher and a gifted teacher of the word? And you don't know that forgiveness and salvation are two different things!
I haven't heard you mention the resurrection yet. In your learning what was the significance of the resurrection?

The two go hand in hand and cannot be separated. They are not 2 distinct actions for 2 distinct purposes. The death and resurrection work together to achieve a common goal. They are not scatter shot but are aimed with precision. The blood may be sufficient for all but it is only efficient for the Elect.

The blood does not forgive all of mankind for, if it did, there would be nothing left to be saved from. I can't state this enough. You try to reconcile your statements to say that forgiveness of the Father is not synonymous with salvation.

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

Note that it not only says we have forgiveness through the blood but also redemption. It is this redemption that considers us reconciled to the Father because He has redeemed us as His own.

"Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."

Here we see that belief in Christ is also related to forgiveness of sins. So is it the blood that forgives or is it faith in Christ that forgives? My answer is BOTH! They are synonymous. The atonement was not unlimited. It was aimed with precision and never fails to hit what it has targeted. Not only does it always hit but it also kills without fail every single time. It washes us clean and destroys our old nature. However, it is not complete without the resurrection. The good news is that one does not come into play without the other. The reason behind this is because the Spirit is the driving force making it happen. He alone regenerates. The blood alone cleanses. The resurrection alone brings life. However, none of these are independent. They all act in one accord by the power of God's saving grace.

BTW, notice the wording used in Matthew 26:28.

for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Notice that it does not say all are forgiven. It distinctly separates mankind into 2 categories; those who are included in the many and those who are not. This is because not all are justified. Forgiveness and justification are synonyms for each other.

 

[rojoloco]

O.K. but your "us" is a "Born Again" Christian. A unbeliever can be forgiven because of the cross and he is not justified unless he changes course and receives the Holy Spirit and he too subsequently "Born Again"!

BTW, Romans 5:9 totally disagrees with your theology. You claim the blood forgives but does not justify? Let's see what Paul says shall we?

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

One can never be forgiven yet not justified because the 2 are synonymous. To be justified is to be declared righteous due to being made innocent. One is made innocent through forgiveness. One is forgiven and justified by the blood of Christ. However, do not think the resurrection remains silent in all of this. It is right there by the side of the blood working in unison.

 

[RJ]

The two go hand in hand and cannot be separated. They are not 2 distinct actions for 2 distinct purposes. The death and resurrection work together to achieve a common goal. They are not scatter shot but are aimed with precision. The blood may be sufficient for all but it is only efficient for the Elect.

The blood does not forgive all of mankind for, if it did, there would be nothing left to be saved from. I can't state this enough. You try to reconcile your statements to say that forgiveness of the Father is not synonymous with salvation.



Note that it not only says we have forgiveness through the blood but also redemption. It is this redemption that considers us reconciled to the Father because He has redeemed us as His own.


Here we see that belief in Christ is also related to forgiveness of sins. So is it the blood that forgives or is it faith in Christ that forgives? My answer is BOTH! They are synonymous. The atonement was not unlimited. It was aimed with precision and never fails to hit what it has targeted. Not only does it always hit but it also kills without fail every single time. It washes us clean and destroys our old nature. However, it is not complete without the resurrection. The good news is that one does not come into play without the other. The reason behind this is because the Spirit is the driving force making it happen. He alone regenerates. The blood alone cleanses. The resurrection alone brings life. However, none of these are independent. They all act in one accord by the power of God's saving grace.

BTW, notice the wording used in Matthew 26:28.



Notice that it does not say all are forgiven. It distinctly separates mankind into 2 categories; those who are included in the many and those who are not. This is because not all are justified. Forgiveness and justification are synonyms for each other.

Forgiveness is a precursor and a requirement for salvation but it is not salvation in itself.

If you don't have eternal life you have no salvation. So, as YOU SAY, God forbid me saying it, that the resurrection alone brings life, then the resurrection ALONE brings salvation. If you don't have eternal life, then what is salvation?

Everyone has forgiveness assured and waiting for them, it is done, it is over, but ONLY the believer, the "Born Again" Christian from the indwelling of God himself has forgiveness guaranteed and the reward is salvation. Salvation is of course an element of God's free gift, but it only comes after the indwelling of his Holy Spirit!!!!!!

Anyone else, outside the indwelling of Jesus Christ, is condemned already and will not be saved, unless they change course.

 

[rojoloco]

Forgiveness is a precursor and a requirement for salvation but it is not salvation in itself.

If you don't have eternal life you have no salvation. So, as YOU SAY, God forbid me saying it, that the resurrection alone brings life, then the resurrection ALONE brings salvation. If you don't have eternal life, then what is salvation?

Everyone has forgiveness assured and waiting for them, it is done, it is over, but ONLY the believer, the "Born Again" Christian from the indwelling of God himself has forgiveness guaranteed and the reward is salvation. Salvation is of course an element of God's free gift, but it only comes after the indwelling of his Holy Spirit!!!!!!

Anyone else, outside the indwelling of Jesus Christ, is condemned already and will not be saved, unless they change course.

So, in essence, what you are proposing here is that God sends justified men to Hell. At first, you tried saying there was a difference between forgiveness and justification. I showed you how Romans5:9 blatantly says otherwise. The only reconciliation to your comment without backtracking would be for you to say you believe God sends those whom He has justified to Hell. However, one again, Scripture says otherwise.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

So we can clearly see there is no differentiation between forgiveness and justification. We can also see that those who are justified will also be glorified. The only thing left to consider is whether or not your theology is in error on this particular point. You were already proven wrong in your claim that forgiveness does not equal justification. Perhaps there are a few other areas in your belief on this matter that need prayerful refining. We all have those areas in our life. None of us have all the answers. God knows I've been proven wrong in the past. Please don't take this as me having a holier than thou attitude. That is not my intent at all. I just see this subject as being of extreme importance.

As I said earlier, the blood and the resurrection both work hand in hand and never work apart from one another.

 

[RJ]

So, in essence, what you are proposing here is that God sends justified men to Hell. At first, you tried saying there was a difference between forgiveness and justification. I showed you how Romans5:9 blatantly says otherwise. The only reconciliation to your comment without backtracking would be for you to say you believe God sends those whom He has justified to Hell. However, one again, Scripture says otherwise.



So we can clearly see there is no differentiation between forgiveness and justification. We can also see that those who are justified will also be glorified. The only thing left to consider is whether or not your theology is in error on this particular point. You were already proven wrong in your claim that forgiveness does not equal justification. Perhaps there are a few other areas in your belief on this matter that need prayerful refining. We all have those areas in our life. None of us have all the answers. God knows I've been proven wrong in the past. Please don't take this as me having a holier than thou attitude. That is not my intent at all. I just see this subject as being of extreme importance.

As I said earlier, the blood and the resurrection both work hand in hand and never work apart from one another.

AND YOU CALL YOURSELF PREACHER AND TEACHER????????

My only being proven wrong is in your OWN mind!!!!!!!!
You are impossible!!!!!!!
I never, never , never said that Forgiveness does not equal Justification!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I SAID THAT FORGIVENESS IS AVAILABLE TO ALL, EVEN UNBELIEVERS BUT THE ACTUAL GAINING FORGIVENESS IS ONLY FOR THE BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN BELIEVER!!!!! WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT INSTEAD OF ALWAYS PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whether you like it or not the Cross and the Resurrection did not happen simultaneously.........."On the third day he arose again from the dead!!!!!!!!!! They are both important and critical to ones salvation but only the resurrected life of Jesus Christ will give you eternal life and thus your ultimate salvation. I guarantee you that there are plenty of people in the church that believe in the Cross but because they never have repented and "called upon the name of the Lord" are not saved, so what did the finality of the cross do for them but condemnation and death?

 

[rojoloco]

AND YOU CALL YOURSELF PREACHER AND TEACHER????????

My only being proven wrong is in your OWN mind!!!!!!!!
You are impossible!!!!!!!
I never, never , never said that Forgiveness does not equal Justification!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I SAID THAT FORGIVENESS IS AVAILABLE TO ALL, EVEN UNBELIEVERS BUT THE ACTUAL GAINING FORGIVENESS IS ONLY FOR THE BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN BELIEVER!!!!! WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT INSTEAD OF ALWAYS PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have I really put words into your mouth?

All are forgiven at the cross, but
Faith, thus received and resting on Christ and his righteousness alone, is the alone instrument of Justification. You must be born anew of the spirit to be justified.

Here, you clearly differentiated forgiveness from justification. You said ALL are forgiven but only some are justified. Furthermore, you said ALL are forgiven by the blood but justification only comes through faith. Your argument was not that only Christians are forgiven and justified. You clearly stated that all are forgiven before faith but only Christians are justified after faith.

A unbeliever can be forgiven because of the cross and he is not justified unless he changes course

Once again, you say one can be forgiven but not justified unless he takes action in his own hands.

The unbeliever has the opportunity because of the cross but if he remains in his unbelief, he is not justified and will be condemned.

And yet again, you have made the claim that one can be forgiven yet not justified. You have said one can be forgiven, not have any debt owed, yet still be condemned.

So, am I really putting words into your own mouth? Forgiveness cannot equal justification while also not equaling justification. It's either/or. Choose wisely.

 

[rojoloco]

Whether you like it or not the Cross and the Resurrection did not happen simultaneously.........."On the third day he arose again from the dead!!!!!!!!!! They are both important and critical to ones salvation but only the resurrected life of Jesus Christ will give you eternal life and thus your ultimate salvation. I guarantee you that there are plenty of people in the church that believe in the Cross but because they never have repented and "called upon the name of the Lord" are not saved, so what did the finality of the cross do for them but condemnation and death?

They may not have occurred simultaneously but, in the matter of salvation, the Spirit effects both actions simultaneously in the believer upon regeneration.

 

[jiggyfly]

Please, let's clarify here: the Christian is found not guilty because of the cross and saved by the resurrected life of Jesus Christ. The unbeliever has the opportunity because of the cross but if he remains in his unbelief, he is not justified and will be condemned.

Got some scripture for the condemned part?

 

[RJ]

Got some scripture for the condemned part?

Romans 8:1
Romans 8
Life Through the Spirit
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

So the converse should be true:

Therefore there is now condemnation for those who are not in Christ Jesus!

Where does the Bible say that you are not to think and use your power to reason? And the above verse in Romans was not of my own thinking!!

 

[RJ]

They may not have occurred simultaneously but, in the matter of salvation, the Spirit effects both actions simultaneously in the believer upon regeneration.

O.K. here come out the flags again:
:surrender::surrender::surrender::surrender::surrender:

Crazy Red, I don't believe you any more about this than I believe you about "YOUR" theology of "Frozen Chosen"...Oh I mean your theology saved by Election only! I am very confident that you have already judge me and don't consider me in your elite group!!!

So, I am now through with any further replies on this subject!

 

[rojoloco]

O.K. here come out the flags again:
:surrender::surrender::surrender::surrender::surrender:

Crazy Red, I don't believe you any more about this than I believe you about "YOUR" theology of "Frozen Chosen"...Oh I mean your theology saved by Election only! I am very confident that you have already judge me and don't consider me in your elite group!!!

So, I am now through with any further replies on this subject!

Based on your animosity toward Calvinism, I really am not surprised by your unwillingness to budge. You call it "MY" theology yet it is the very theology that YOURS sprang from. Remember, Reformed Theology was the very basis of the Reformation...where Protestantism began. Your insistence on using terms such as "Frozen Chosen" also go to show how you do not really understand the doctrine of Unconditional Election. If you did, you would realize your term made zero sense. Maybe it is you who are frozen because you don't seem to want to get over your preconceived false ideas of what Reformed Theology really teaches. As for whether or not I consider you to be one of the Elect, I actually do. It is based on the very fact that you have a passion for Jesus Christ. Whether you realize it or not, God chose you before the foundation of the world and you are only one of His because of the plan He had for you even when you were depraved and hated Him through your rejection of Him.

Regardless, I have shown you in Scripture how forgiveness and justification are blatantly synonymous yet you have been quoted several times saying they are not. If one is not forgiven/justified, he will be condemned. If one is forgiven/justified, he is saved. However, the regenerating work of the Spirit is the precursor to it all and, as the original post points out, is limited to the Elect of God. Is it a feeling struggle for power/control that prevents you from admitting it is ALL in His power/control? He forces no one to Himself yet no one will come to Him unless He draws them unto Himself. We all come willingly but only because He has regenerated our nature that we may desire Him. This regeneration only takes place among the Elect.

 

[INRI]

After watching and reading along for a while, the contention seems to be over belief and believing.

I'm just curious about what is so valuable about believing?

RJ seems to think that believing is a choice, and that you cannot become born again until you've made that choice. But being born is never a choice we are given the first time around, so why should we expect to have a say in the matter the second time around?

That is not to say that I am of a predeterministic mind.

If God chose anyone in the beginning, that is entirely up to Him, and whether RJ is correct or rojoloco is correct, it likely means very little to Him.

I will say though, that I agree with rojoloco in that there is no forgiveness without justification. Although, I am a little confused as to exactly why blood letting is required for this forgiveness and justification.

Why blood?

 

[RJ]

After watching and reading along for a while, the contention seems to be over belief and believing.

I'm just curious about what is so valuable about believing?

RJ seems to think that believing is a choice, and that you cannot become born again until you've made that choice. But being born is never a choice we are given the first time around, so why should we expect to have a say in the matter the second time around?

That is not to say that I am of a predeterministic mind.

If God chose anyone in the beginning, that is entirely up to Him, and whether RJ is correct or rojoloco is correct, it likely means very little to Him.

I will say though, that I agree with rojoloco in that there is no forgiveness without justification. Although, I am a little confused as to exactly why blood letting is required for this forgiveness and justification.

Why blood?

You see, more words in my mouth. Please show me where I said that forgiveness without justification was untrue.

The sin problem, the barrier that separates man from God was taken care of at the Cross.....all sin and for all time because unlike the Priests of Old, Jesus was the final Priest and he "SAT DOWN"!!
Now, with NO Justification,the act of God's forgiveness (hasn't been obtained yet!) is AVAILABLE for ALL. Actual Justification and then Forgiveness, the actual point of no condemnation, happens with your Spiritual Birth.

You believe what you wish but for me God gave Adam a choice and he gave Abraham choice and he gave me a choice:

Revelation 3:20

20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

 

[jiggyfly]

Romans 8:1
Romans 8
Life Through the Spirit
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

So the converse should be true:

Therefore there is now condemnation for those who are not in Christ Jesus!

Where does the Bible say that you are not to think and use your power to reason? And the above verse in Romans was not of my own thinking!!

Good scripture RJ, the greek word translated as condemnation here is katakrima and it means an adverse sentence or punishment.

 

[jiggyfly]

Just for the record, when it comes to calvinism and arminianism I see some truth and error in both. Considering that both concepts are quite opposing in their major themes makes it illogical for both to be right but it is not illogical for both to be wrong.

 

[rojoloco]

You see, more words in my mouth. Please show me where I said that forgiveness without justification was untrue.

You contradict yourself on this subject constantly. You have said both justification/forgiveness are separate and the same. You got angry and said I put words into your mouth. I then quoted the words that came out of your mouth. Instead of responding to that post, you skipped it and moved on to a different one. Why? Because you were caught and there was nothing that could be said otherwise. Yet, here you are again claiming somebody else is putting words into your mouth again. Perhaps you are not remembering what you are typing.

Now, with NO Justification,the act of God's forgiveness (hasn't been obtained yet!) is AVAILABLE for ALL. Actual Justification and then Forgiveness, the actual point of no condemnation, happens with your Spiritual Birth.

Look on the last page where I quoted you saying the EXACT opposite. Have you really changed your theological beliefs that quickly or do you just go back and forth? It's an honest question based on what I have seen.

You believe what you wish but for me God gave Adam a choice and he gave Abraham choice and he gave me a choice:

Revelation 3:20

20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

Yes, he gave you a choice. However, the rest of Scripture tells you what you will choose lest the Spirit quicken and regenerate you.

 

[StopPolloition]

The frozen chosen? Lol. I hadn't heard that one. Lot's o' debate on this topic and I'm not certain that we can ever know (in this life, anyway) who is most right. The simple fact is that both sides have some very compelling angles. But there is something very niggling about the idea of universal atonement that doesn't sit well with me. It just seems that the work of Christ on the cross is rendered impotent if the original intent was to provide for the salvation of all people. Matthew 1:21 very succinctly scuttles that notion: "and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" not everyone, his people.

All people are fallen from sin and are incapable of getting themselves free- no one will be saved apart from the grace of God. Further I think we can all agree that God is sovereign and that relatively few will be saved.

How do we reconcile these truths with the fact that it's not God's will that any perish? As it relates to man, the scriptures seem to indicate at least two delineations of God's will. Firstly what is called his decretive or decree- this is the word that cannot return unto him void- this is the election of those to salvation; God decreed your salvation and wrote your name in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world. You MUST then have been saved. Choice here is irrelevant. You "chose" because you were willed to choose. This doesnt violate the idea of freewill; your free will is what kept you away from God as long as it did.

Second, God's will as it relates to men is preceptive- this is violated ALL THE TIME. For example, Gods will for us is to be good stewards yet some still struggle with fiscal responsibility. God's will for Israel was that they be the head and not the tail; yet theirs was often a history of servitude and bondage- if not to sin then to other nations because of sin. It's not God's will (preceptive) that any should perish. Yet we know because the scriptures tell us that MANY go in the crooked and broad gate.

The sovereign choice of God about who can receive this grace is the foundation of election. God chose from amongst depraved men those whom he would save, provided the source of salvation in Christ and the means through his Holy Spirit. The idea of election is no different than the fact that God chose Israel out of all nations in the world to be his people. Deut 4:37, 7:6,7; 1 kings 3:8; Isaiah 44:1,2 etc.

So why Israel? Because they would eventually turn to him? That can hardly be the case- the Bible is filled with Israel's rejections of God's overtures. The world eklektos is used of both Christ and angels but mainly references believers (Mark 13:20,22,27; Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 1:1; 2 JOhn 1:13 etc. Elektos is the adjective form and describes the chosen, ekloge is the noun and relates to that which is chosen.

At its most basic, God chose out (ek-from lego-to pick). G.C. Berkouwer has a wonderful work called "The Providence of God" that even further simplifies election into 5 areas. For the sake of brevity, I'll only cite them: Election of those that are saved, election of the means of their salvation, to elect the means in the redeeming activity of the Holy Spirit, to elect the results in the implantation of Christ's righteous nature to those that are saved and to elect the destiny of eternal fellowship with God.

Now taking all this into consideration, we cant confuse God's sovereign choice in election with his foreknowlege- what I stated earlier that God didnt choose because a man or woman would make a decision for him but instead that the only reason a person makes a decision is because he or she was chosen. To say that God choose those who of their own volition chose him ignores entirely God's sovereignty and is diametrically opposed to the definition of foreknowledge. Sure God knew forever ago who would be saved, but this knowledge wasnt the basis of his decision. I have to pause here and say that only He knows why He chose me, or you or the next person. Even in eternity, in His presence, we still may not know. Foreknowledge isnt knowledge only, it's the act of God's will to bring to pass what he knows. His knowledge cant be viewed separate from his will.

Why did God choose Abraham over any other idolater? Why did he love Israel and reject other nations? Why did he love Jacob and hate Esau? Why did he choose David over his brothers? Why did he love John but use Judas to betray him? Why Paul and not another? Why did Luke stay and Demas forsake him? Why you and me?

All throughout the Bible, we see God's sovereign choices. As to the comment of God's goodness in spite of his condemning someone...that's a straw man and built entirely on human logic. Election is more than accurate, it's everywhere. Our salvation will serve as indictment against the sin of those not called. Unfair? No, we all deserve death, no one deserved to be chosen over anyone else. Inexplicable? Yes. I think about it everyday- Why me, God? And you know, it's beautiful and very, very humbling.

 

[StopPolloition]

Although, I am a little confused as to exactly why blood letting is required for this forgiveness and justification.

Why blood?

All arguments of salvation must begin with the understanding that God is holy and therefore unlike any other. "Transcendant" is a good way to describe His holiness. The only remedy for the abrogation of this holiness is the removal of sin by the death of the sinner. There is no other way. That puts man in a precarious situation; we in our sinfulness sinned against an infinite God thus the payment must needs have been infinite. (This pretty much kills the idea of annihilationism- that people are merely consumed in hell and that's it- the sinner must be punished infinitely). When people made sacrifices in the OT, it only rolled the punishment back for a year, the lamb or goat had hands lain upon him to symbolically transfer the sins of the offerant to the sacrifice. Yet the sin remained. God supplied in his Son (the infinite God) the remedy, the propitation for our sins. He took upon Himself the punishment of sin and became our vicarious offering. His blood purchased our freedom. :wink:

 

[RJ]

The frozen chosen? Lol. I hadn't heard that one. Lot's o' debate on this topic and I'm not certain that we can ever know (in this life, anyway) who is most right. The simple fact is that both sides have some very compelling angles. But there is something very niggling about the idea of universal atonement that doesn't sit well with me. It just seems that the work of Christ on the cross is rendered impotent if the original intent was to provide for the salvation of all people. Matthew 1:21 very succinctly scuttles that notion: "and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" not everyone, his people.

All people are fallen from sin and are incapable of getting themselves free- no one will be saved apart from the grace of God. Further I think we can all agree that God is sovereign and that relatively few will be saved.

How do we reconcile these truths with the fact that it's not God's will that any perish? As it relates to man, the scriptures seem to indicate at least two delineations of God's will. Firstly what is called his decretive or decree- this is the word that cannot return unto him void- this is the election of those to salvation; God decreed your salvation and wrote your name in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world. You MUST then have been saved. Choice here is irrelevant. You "chose" because you were willed to choose. This doesnt violate the idea of freewill; your free will is what kept you away from God as long as it did.

Second, God's will as it relates to men is preceptive- this is violated ALL THE TIME. For example, Gods will for us is to be good stewards yet some still struggle with fiscal responsibility. God's will for Israel was that they be the head and not the tail; yet theirs was often a history of servitude and bondage- if not to sin then to other nations because of sin. It's not God's will (preceptive) that any should perish. Yet we know because the scriptures tell us that MANY go in the crooked and broad gate.

The sovereign choice of God about who can receive this grace is the foundation of election. God chose from amongst depraved men those whom he would save, provided the source of salvation in Christ and the means through his Holy Spirit. The idea of election is no different than the fact that God chose Israel out of all nations in the world to be his people. Deut 4:37, 7:6,7; 1 kings 3:8; Isaiah 44:1,2 etc.

So why Israel? Because they would eventually turn to him? That can hardly be the case- the Bible is filled with Israel's rejections of God's overtures. The world eklektos is used of both Christ and angels but mainly references believers (Mark 13:20,22,27; Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 1:1; 2 JOhn 1:13 etc. Elektos is the adjective form and describes the chosen, ekloge is the noun and relates to that which is chosen.

At its most basic, God chose out (ek-from lego-to pick). G.C. Berkouwer has a wonderful work called "The Providence of God" that even further simplifies election into 5 areas. For the sake of brevity, I'll only cite them: Election of those that are saved, election of the means of their salvation, to elect the means in the redeeming activity of the Holy Spirit, to elect the results in the implantation of Christ's righteous nature to those that are saved and to elect the destiny of eternal fellowship with God.

Now taking all this into consideration, we cant confuse God's sovereign choice in election with his foreknowlege- what I stated earlier that God didnt choose because a man or woman would make a decision for him but instead that the only reason a person makes a decision is because he or she was chosen. To say that God choose those who of their own volition chose him ignores entirely God's sovereignty and is diametrically opposed to the definition of foreknowledge. Sure God knew forever ago who would be saved, but this knowledge wasnt the basis of his decision. I have to pause here and say that only He knows why He chose me, or you or the next person. Even in eternity, in His presence, we still may not know. Foreknowledge isnt knowledge only, it's the act of God's will to bring to pass what he knows. His knowledge cant be viewed separate from his will.

Why did God choose Abraham over any other idolater? Why did he love Israel and reject other nations? Why did he love Jacob and hate Esau? Why did he choose David over his brothers? Why did he love John but use Judas to betray him? Why Paul and not another? Why did Luke stay and Demas forsake him? Why you and me?

All throughout the Bible, we see God's sovereign choices. As to the comment of God's goodness in spite of his condemning someone...that's a straw man and built entirely on human logic. Election is more than accurate, it's everywhere. Our salvation will serve as indictment against the sin of those not called. Unfair? No, we all deserve death, no one deserved to be chosen over anyone else. Inexplicable? Yes. I think about it everyday- Why me, God? And you know, it's beautiful and very, very humbling.

I am just going to reply to this one thing:

It just seems that the work of Christ on the cross is rendered impotent if the original intent was to provide for the salvation of all people.

I certainly hope you are not referring to my threads, because if you are, yet again someone has put words into my mouth.
I will say what I said one more time:

The cross forgives. The original intent, as you put it, of the cross was to provide FORGIVENESS for all,; I never said salvation!!!!

How can the Cross give you salvation? The Cross can't give you salvation, the resurrected life of Jesus Christ gives you eternal life and your salvation. The "Finality Of The Cross" was complete days before the resurrection. First there was Forgiveness and then comes life and salvation IF you have the faith!!!

 

[StopPolloition]

You're right on the point you commented on; I should have said "forgiveness" in that case not salvation. Alot of posts to consider at once. :embarasse