No, Paul was consistent. Yours is a forced interpretation of Gal. 5:4 in which the text follows from the conclusion. All of Paul's writings on the subject point to a sure salvation.
I guess that's the part of the Bible the Protestants have rejected, even through it clearly says Christ came to save the world, sinners (all of us, because all are sinners, even the "saved").
You say this, but you do not address the issue. If the Father's will was that all be saved, then you must believe that Christ failed to do the Father's will. Does Christ at least get an 'A' for effort? :) You have said before that for humans, we might be OK if we honestly try, but honestly fail. Is it the same with Christ?
There are many on your side of the divide who claim they very much know who is elect. Dr. E. knows her children are because "God gave them to" her. In other words, God doesn't give reprobate children to elect parents! You are the only one so far who claims not to know who is elect and who is not. I guess that's because you are a newbie Calvinist.
:) I have never heard Dr. E. say she knows who, by name, is of the elect. I've never heard any other Calvinist say it either (other than him/herself). I did see her speak earlier of Covenant baptism, but this does not determine who is of the elect. She knows that some who have this baptism as an infant will not ultimately be saved, and thus of the elect. In her 5304, Dr. E. cites the Westminster Confession. In that it says (emphasis added):
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
God's counsel determines everything. This does NOT say that every "splashee" is saved. :) As for Dr. E. knowing about her own children, she is a mother, and well, mothers just know things. I mean, you're a man who's been around the block. Don't go there. :)
FK: "... therefore no Biblical argument about the slavery you are talking about can be made."
Your history is flawed, dear FK. The west justified slavery precisely through the Bible.
I obviously meant LEGITIMATELY Biblically made. I was talking truth, not history. I have no doubt that some used the Bible to justify all sorts of abominable acts throughout history. It didn't make them right. I showed that the Bible does not match their interpretations, and that no one can legitimately use the Bible to justify the type of slavery we are talking about.
The whole concept of predestined "elect" and predestined refuse is contrary to the idea of all humans deserving the same dignity, but rather divides people into the select and the rejected, even saying of the reject that God is not their Father (He is not, but by their decision, not His, and yes, when it comes to evil, man thwarts God's will, FK!).
Predestination does not divide anyone unless someone can name the elect. We Calvinists cannot, and no one can. Any of us will tell you that the elect are among all races, and any other demographic subdivision you can come up with. No one can point to any physical characteristic and claim "he is excluded" by legitimately reading the Bible. I'm sure there were false teachers on this on all sides way back when, but today nobody who is Christian teaches this. There is no discrimination since the Bible commands us to take the Gospel to ALL NATIONS.
[Re: John 1:10-12] FK verse 10 says the world did not recognize Him. Who were those who later recognized Him?
His children, the elect.
Verse 11 says those who were His own did not receive Him? Who then received Him? All the people of the world are referred to as "His own." But we are not His simply because He created us. We can only be His if we come to Him after he calls us, and if we stay with Him. It is not that God is not the Father of the world, but that the world doesn't in its entirety recognize Him as their Father, rejects Him.
"His own" can either refer to God's possessions or God's children, or both. If children, then they must have been purchased (1 Cor. 6:19). But if not children, then God still created them and God retains full ownership rights to do with them whatever He pleases. So, in verse 11, "His own" could mean all people (in which case the elect simply did not recognize Him YET), or those people who were not His children.
Verse 12 separates out His children one way or the other. No one accepts Christ until He calls him, as you said, and 12-13 are the key verses to prove that some people are God's children and some are not.
I've said countless times that I know my salvation is sure because I know whom I have believed. As for my children, I trust God that they are among His elect, as I do my husband, according to His promise.
As for the rest of the world, only God knows for certain. But we have clues according to the fruit of each man, whether it be good or evil. And further, we know that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Therefore "good fruit" must first be predicated on Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
So God has given us plenty of evidence to consider. Certainly enough for this world.
Here's a short and solid example of what I consider to be the Scriptural understanding of baptism...
7. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father, kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for attempting to prevent them from coming, (Matth. 19: 13,) because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone there is access to heaven... ...For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word, but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their posterity! Here we may see how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as David's was, (Ps. 48: 11,) to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church.""...6. Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and, therefore, that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father - an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham ordered it to be sealed, infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children? Let it not be objected that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.