What it states is that God sets the terms of salvation, but it does not say that God has a list of men he will damn because he does not want them to be saved. On the contrary, it says God wants all to be saved...but all are not. Why? Hmmm?
There is no puzzle for those who understand that God will not FORCE faith on others.
“In Scripture, faith comes before spiritual life:
It certainly does not, and the scripture even explicitly declares that the “carnal man” cannot discern the things of God.”
Actually, it does. We believe to live. We do not live, and then believe. “ and that by believing you may have life in his name”
“This is mere assertion.”
No. It makes clear why election is “In Christ”.
“The use of websites is pure laziness.”
No. I have no intention of posting a few hundred pages of scholarly arguments and discussions of the meanings of Greek words. I gave a decent sample, and anyone who wants to read a 50 page discussion can follow the links and find them.
“Do not dance around or toss red herrings at me.”
I’ve done neither. I have pointed out that scripture says we are saved by grace thru faith, not grace thru by-name predestination. There are roughly 500 verses in the NT alone on the importance of faith and believing, and about 20 or so on election. To base one’s interpretation of 500 verses on 20 verses that one has not bothered to research the meaning and context of is a poor approach to studying the Bible.
Pointing out that election could refer to individual names OR to corporate election is not throwing out red herrings. It is a valid, logical point, well substantiated at the links provided. Trying to read in by-name election into Romans 9-11 simply ignores the text. When Paul writes, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”, he is quoting MALACHI, not Genesis. He is discussing nations, not individuals.
These are, again, just assertions and rhetorical statements, which do not address anything I have said, which actually already address these topics.
No. I have no intention of posting a few hundred pages of scholarly arguments and discussions of the meanings of Greek words. I gave a decent sample, and anyone who wants to read a 50 page discussion can follow the links and find them.
But why must we read a few hundred pages of "scholarly arguments" when I've made very specific challenges here and now? Will you or will you not address my points on the John 6 scriptures and other verses I have presented? Just pointing to some other verse, which you claim contradicts, is nothing but distraction. If the scripture cannot be broken, then you must answer my challenges already made to previous objections, not keep piling on objections without meeting challenges.
I have no intention of reading material from your websites, or anyone's website, until my challenges are respectfully met, not ignored or lost in the wilderness you are trying to plant. I'm doing this, by the way, because I remember the last time we debated, and you did not address my points back then either. I have sworn not to be distracted with an infinite number of objections, but, rather, to make my opponents address my points before moving on to anything else.
1Co_14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.