You may not have directly stated as much, but being chosen to a purpose is a far different issue than being chosen to salvation so unless Israel's election is salvific your point is not salient.
Well, of course it is a separate consideration, but they are both the same thing as far as the Elect. God's plan for them is one, though, like the non-elect, they are made also for specific things, to include specific interactions with other humans. God's decree, (specific plans) for individual humans, stands and will not change.
This is simply injecting words to create a loophole. God desires all to be saved, it's explicitly statd in Scripture. "equally and effectually" is simply a non-scriptural injection that bears no real meaning. What God desires, He desires effectually. For God there is no reason to put a wall of division between His will and His desires, because everything within His desire is within His power.
Is it, or is it not, obvious he does not have the same and equal intention and love toward all people?
As for references to "the elect," the phrase like all other words is used differently in different contexts. It is only by imposing a homogeneity that does not exist in the text that the unscriptural Calvinistic view of "the elect" arises, which is why it was not an issue until the Reformation and it never became an issue in the Eastern church. "The elect" as Reformed theology understands it is a construct built on injecting a philosophical view into the text that simply is not present.
You poo-poo the notion by way of complaining that "Elect" can mean several things. So get specific. Which uses of "Elect"
do not apply to those he chose from the foundation of the earth, even before they were conceived, and which uses of "Elect"
do refer to what I am referring to by, "Elect"? It actually should only even take one time (yes, necessarily 'in context') for the doctrine to be sound.
Again, there is no reason to separate God's desires from His will so to deny that God desires to "effectually and equally" save is tantamount to denying He desires to save them, which is a denial of explicit Biblical statements. What you perceive as my issues of exegesis involve a construct that did not exist until the Reformer's, built upon taking Augustinian concepts to an extreme and developing logical consequences from them. Its fruit of a rotten tree, and poses no issue in exegesis on my part as I am able to understand what Scripture means by "the elect" on the basis of the context the phrase appears in rather than applying a rigid construct that is not actually present.
Your whole narrative here is suspect, even aside from the fact that, in context, neither mention of God desiring all to be saved can mean, 'all the elect', or 'people of all kinds' etc. You necessarily must proclaim as 'insoluble (irreducible) that "all means all" —at least in these instances', and you must make a rule that God's desire necessarily is consistent with his plans, unless interrupted by chance happenings by uncaused freewill, or by other unforeseeable events.
It is rather obvious, when Christ says, (Luke 22:42) “Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done.” that there were two things going on here. Not both can be done, but the plan will be done, not the wish. We know that God hates sin. But without the fact of sin and its results, there would be no perfect Dwelling Place of God. It is not without wishing it could be otherwise, and it is not without great personal pain, that he decreed that all things happen that have (and will) happen, to the Joy of both God and man, and to the Glory of God.
