There's no such thing as a elected unbeliever: John was not a calvinist

[frumanchu]

actually, I didn't even see that post.

[/font]

I don't see that this decides it one way or the other.

at most, I consider that your example may show how your position is still coherent in light of the claims made in John 3. But I don't think it is in line with the heart of the matter, and I don't think that I can articulate shy that is beyond what the quote of yours above in this post was responding to.

There is method to my madness, geebob. I am laboring to show you how your assertions that these verses defeat the doctrine of individual election are incorrect.

The assertion of this thread is that these verses in John make Calvinist predestination "absurd." At this point, you are now stating that the examples I'm using (which keep in line with the Calvinist position of individual election) may show how my position is "still coherent in light of the claims made in John 3."

Your consistent point throughout this thread has been that we can't say of the elect that they "will not see life" and they "will be saved" at the same time. Using an example, I put forth precisely that in post 65 ("Thus, while Team A is losing and will lose ... they WILL win."). In the subsequent post you stated that you "do not know why this isn't reasonable with regard to understanding the 3rd chapter of John.". I then applied the term 'election' to the example as representing the second part of that statement in post 65. The next step is to replace 'losing' with 'condemnation' and 'winning' with 'salvation.' This gives us the statement: "Thus, while Team A is condemned and will be condemned (conditioned upon their continuing in unbelief), they are STILL elect (because they ARE ACTUALLY saved)."

This is consistent with the statements you've thusfar agreed with.

So, either you need to show me where this statement or my logic is flawed, or you need to accept and admin that the verses you've provided do not make Calvinist individual election 'absurd.'

 

[geebob]

I know what you what the point of your example was. You don't have to explain it.

So, either you need to show me where this statement or my logic is flawed, or you need to accept and admin that the verses you've provided do not make Calvinist individual election 'absurd.'

yes, the latter is what I meant when I said that I didn't see why your example was unreasonable. thus I told eldermike I was stalemated.

I don't currently know that I can say that this conclusively demonstrates an absurdity combined with calvinism. So I merely hold to a weaker position. This presents something that the calvinists can interpret favorably, but I don't find it the best interpretation.

The old arminian answer to calvinism is that God so loved the WORLD that he gave his son. So he loves everyone and desires that everyone can be saved. I think it is right to read it that why and against calvinism. But I know what calvinists would say and I personally and generally could not demonstrate that their explanation is wrong. That is where I am at now with regard to the main arguement in this thread.