No -- why? The gospels are filled with things that we are to do, whereas we are also free to not do them.
It all depends on who is doing the electing. My side says that God has already done all the electing, from before the foundations. It's done, in the can, case closed, etc. I "thought" that the Catholic view was that God fast-forwarded His TIVO to see who would accept Him, and then declared them the elect, but did that also from the beginning. In both cases the elect were all set originally, but by different means.
It appears you may be introducing a third option. If a person must REMAIN elect, then that erases any idea of predestination of any sort. If one's state of election is constantly in flux, then what is your concept of predestination?
"flesh accounts for nothing" is a mistranslation. It actually says "flesh profits nothing", and therefore refers not to the flesh of Christ, but to the flesh of the eater, which indeed gains nothing from the communion bread gastronomically speaking.
I don't have any problem with "profits" vs. "accounts". What's the difference? Look what the actual verse says:
John 6:63 : The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
The bread and the wine are not, (and do not lead to), spirit and life, His word is. Of course, if we take your view, then we could say that if the eater's flesh profits nothing, then the works of that flesh also profit nothing.
Both 1 Cor 7:21-23 and Romans 6:17-18 speak of liberation from sin and "slavery of righteousness" is not an indication of lack of an ability to choose wrong, but rather lack of desire to choose wrong.
Yes! They are about the results of changed hearts.
The context of 1 Corinthians 7 is general obedience to the "calling", thus it exhorts our free will; likewise Romans 6: "yield your members to serve justice, unto sanctification". If it is "slavery" it is a voluntary form of it.
I have to disagree, since it seems you are referring to a general "outward calling". Another example would be that God wants all men to be saved. In these passages, I think it's different because the reference point is a heart that has already been literally changed. Thus, there is no freedom to throw that away permanently. In the passages you cite, there is a definitive "before" and "after". So, I think it is much more specific than general obedience. I think he is describing who the new person is.
The new slavery is NOT voluntary because we are not our own and we were bought at a price. Nobody asked me if I was for sale, it just happened. :) Praise God that it did.
No, you got it right the first time. I am merely describing from the point of view of the faithful, who does not have the divine TIVO and is effecting his own election by his free will. In most places, the scripture adopts the same view, because it is more important to tell the faithful to make the right choice than to instill augustinianism in him.
"profits" vs. "accounts". What's the difference?
"Flesh profits" refers to the flesh of the faithful receiving a nutrient. "Flesh accounts" would refer to the flesh of Christ being eaten. The flesh of the feithful does not profit from eating the tiny wafer, just as the verse indicates; but the flesh of Christ accounts for the whole lot as it was broken on the Cross.
I think he is describing who the new person is.
Yes.
new slavery is NOT voluntary
Of course it is. You choose to repent, grow in faith and obey the Gospel.