cygnusx1 said:
particularly take note of Post# 13 where the ''Elect sticker'' is used ...next to Israel........ sure they were an Elect nation ....... Judas was also Elected ..... but that is not the emphasis being placed here , that Israel were nationaly elected .
Ah, an equivocation! Judas was not one of the elect (in the salvific sense), but was chosen to be a part of Jesus's temporal ministry, "so that the Scripture may be fulfilled." You are trying to equate Judas being chosen to betray Judas as being chosen for salvation, but this is a clear ambiguous use of "elect." This is to be expected, though, as you have consistently equivocated on other terms, especially desire.
cygnusx1 said:
what seems to have been overlooked , is that not all Israel are Israel , ie , saved and elected to life , but why should that concern us when looking at a relevant passage about God's desire that men are saved rather than lost? and the whole point of Jonah is to show us the mistaken view of God's desire to save only the "Elect"
Again, a fundamental lack of understanding regarding biblical theology and covenant theology. Jonah was a prefiguration of God's mercy being poured out unto all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike. Jonah was a type of Christ, who is the antitype and fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies.
We see more Arminian persuasion in this interpretation, as your argument implies that God intended to save the "unelect." But this is patently absurd because the
elect are those that God intends to (and will) save. With every post, Cygnus, you continue to show a fundamental lack of biblical principles. Your primary objective is to maintain the "genuine offer" at the expense of the texts. You do not even make a showing attempt to harmonize those doctrines that you afront with your misinterpretations. You do not provide scriptural support for your many assertions, especially those such as God's "multiple desires." Instead, you merely quote well-respected Reformed theologians where their writings seem to agree with your position. Well, I too can cite Reformed theologians that concur with my position--Calvin included.
I have here, the words of Calvin from his commentary on Ezekiel 18:28, the
same chapter (i.e. Eze. 18) you have charged me with stamping the "elect sticker" upon. Please read these words carefully, as they come from the one and same man you suppose to be in agreement with you.
God is said not to wish the death of a sinner. How so? Since he wishes all to be converted. Now we must see how God wishes all to be converted; for repentance is surely his peculiar gift: As it is his office to create men, so it is his province to renew them, and restore his image within them. For this reason we are said to be his workmanship, that is, his fashioning (Ephesians 2:10). Since, therefore, repentance is a kind of section creation, it follows that it is not in man's power; and if it is equally in God's power to convert men as well as to create them, it follows that the reprobate are not converted, because God does not wish their conversion; for if he wished it, he could do it; and hence, it appears that he does not wish it. But again they argue foolishly: Since God does not wish all to be converted, he is himself deceptive, and nothing can be certainly stated concerning his paternal benevolence. But this not is easily untied, for he does not leave us in suspense when he says that he wishes all to be saved. Why so? For if no one repents without finding God propitious, then his sentence is filled up. But we must remark that he puts on a twofold character, for he here wishes to be taken at his word. As I have already said, the Prophet does not here dispute with subtlety about his incomprehensible plans, but wishes to keep our attention close to God's Word. Now, what are the contents of this Word? The law, the prophets and the gospel. Now all are called to repentance, and the hope of salvation is promised them when they repent: This is true since God rejects no returning sinner: He pardons all without exception; meanwhile, this will of God which he sets forth in his Word does not prevent him from decreeing before the world was created what he would do with every individual, and as I have now said, the Prophet only shows here, that when we have been converted we need not doubt that God immediately meets us and shows himself propitious. (emphasis added)
I will now make another quote of Calvin at length. This one from
Calvin's Calvinism, pp. 99-100.
All this Pighius loudly denies, adducing that passage of the apostle (1 Timothy 2:4); "Who will have all men to be saved"; and referring to Ezekiel 18:23, he argues thus: "That God willeth not the death of a sinner may be taken upon his oath, where he says by that prophet: As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked that dieth, but rather that he should return from his ways and live." Now we reply, that as the language of the prophet here is an exhortation to repentance, it is not at all marvelous in him to declare that he willeth all men to be saved. For the mutual relation between threats and promises shows that such forms of speaking are conditional. In this same manner God declared to the Ninevites [!], and to the kinds of Gerar and Egypt, that he would do that which in reality he did not intend to do, for their repentance averted the punishment which he had threatened to inflict upon them. Whence it is evident that the punishment was announced on condition of their remaining obstinate and impenitent. And yet, the denunciation of punishment was positive, as if it had been an irrevocable decree. But after God had terrified them with the apprehension of his wrath, and had fully humbled them as not being utterly desperate, he encouraged them with the hope of pardon, that they might feel that there was yet left open a space for remedy. Just so it is with the conditional promises of God which invite all men to salvation. They do not positively prove that which God has decreed in his counsel, but declare only that which God is ready to do to all those that are brought to faith and repentance.
But men untaught of God, not understanding these things, allege that we here attribute to God a twofold or double will. Whereas God is so far from being variable, that no shadow of variableness appertains to him, even in the most remote degree. Hence, Pighius, ignorant of the divine nature of these things, thus argues: "What else is this but making of God the mocker of men, if God is represented as really not willing that which he professes to will, and as not having pleasure in that which in reality he has pleasure?" But if these two members of the sentence be read in conjunction, as they ought to be--"I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked"; and: "But that the wicked turn from his way and live"--read these two propositions in connection with each other, and the calumny is washed off at once. God requires of us this conversion or "turning away from our iniquity," and in whomsoever he finds it he disappoints not such a one of the promised reward of eternal life. Wherefore, God is as much said to have pleasure in, and to will, this eternal life, as to have pleasure in the repentance; and he has pleasure in the repentance, because he invites all men to it by his Word. Now all this is in perfect harmony with his secret and eternal counsel, by which he decreed to convert none but his own elect. None but God's elect, therefore, ever turn from their wickedness. And yet, the adorable God is not, on these accounts, to be considered variable or capable of change, because as a Lawgiver he enlightens all men with the doctrine of conditional life. In this primary sense he calls or invites all men to eternal life. But in the latter case [i.e., the elect], he brings to eternal life those whom he willed according to his eternal purpose, regenerating by his Spirit, as an eternal Father, his own children only. (emphasis added)
Also reference Calvin in his
Institutes III. 24. 16 and 17. He there exegetes 1 Ti. 2:4 and 2 Pt. 3:9, two more commonly used proof texts for the "genuine offer." Calvin's position is that all of those places in the Bible where God indicates that he desires the wicked repent either mean the elect or are conditional (appertaining only to the elect effectively) unto repentance, which the reprobate cannot muster. He replies to the impious Pighius at length, showing him that he has misunderstood the Scriptures as God desiring all men to repent without exception, instead the text indicating a causal link between repentance and justification. God desires to justify
those that repent! But the reprobate will never repent, therefore,
God does not desire to justify them! This is clearly the scriptural doctrine and Calvin's doctrine.
