Paul discusses his kinsmen and how they might be saved. You have already agreed that there is only one gospel.
I have proven it.
=snort!= Paul said it. Nothing to prove.
It was Paul's want to preach in the synagogues first. It is in Acts.
Acts 17:1-4
When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.
The term is "custom", not "want"
Sorry, not following this.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "clean your room!" and "you'll find things if you clean your room"?
One is not the other.
Okay - you agree that Paul preached v.9 to unbelievers then.
Let's get a few things straight.
Paul did not preach v. 9 to unbelievers. Paul specifically directed it to the Roman saints.
Did Paul preach something like v. 9? I'm sure he did.
Did Paul mean it the exact same way he meant it when he said it to the Romans? That's unlikely. He's talking to those he is already in the fellowship of faith with. Even for Paul, that changes things dramatically. 2 Cor 9 describes this fellowship as his whole reason for preaching.
Correct. Unconditional election says it's beyond reach. Contradiction.
That's not true at all, jan.
In point of fact unconditional election says the word of faith which we preach
is close at hand to elect and unelect alike.
A retraction is becoming quite necessary of you, to keep some integrity.
Which bit of the gospel did he tweak? You have already said there is one gospel.
Did you know Paul
never used the same words to describe the gospel in any record of his preaching. Sorry for your view: the words change.
For whom did Christ die? He died in order to accomplish the joy set before Him. It's what Scripture says. That was Jesus' intent.
Yet you can deliver no joy of Christ for the unelect receiving, and rejecting, the gospel.
So that was not Jesus' intent.
This is what I said:
It is a fact that unconditional election is the sine qua non of salvation in your view. Why are you trying to deny it?
A critical piece of my view? My view is to follow where Scripture leads.
It seems the sine qua non of your view of salvation is the ineffectiveness of God without human choice. Why not try looking at it from other people's points of view?
I did not say what you want me to retract.
You still did not tell the truth. And yet you don't retract. Unconditional election isn't the critical component of my view. It is simply the conclusion of thinking about what God has said.
v.21 To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.
It seems that there were unsaved people in that church.
Why would you say that? The right to sit on a throne implies people aren't saved in your view. Demonstrate that this right is nothing else. In fact, demonstrate that every saved person must gain the right to be on Jesus' throne.
Not sure you have refuted my point regarding Jn 12:32.
I don't know why you have quoted 2 Peter 2:10.
I haven't said that all will be saved.
Then why choose John 12:32? You're talking about a universal atonement. I point out that atonements
atone.