Conditional Election

You have not answered the entirety of my question. You merely dismissed it with an argument that I could use on you for just about anything! Umm. . . I merely stated that if God wants to save people a certain way, He can do that. There's no problem with that statement. I explained why I don't have to answer that question or others like that. Your argument earlier can be compared to this: like me dismissing conditional election because I don't understand why he would have chosen to elect that way. This is called the personal incredulity fallacy. Here's an analogy to help you understand what exactly I'm meaning: God is the creator, He can create creation how He wants to; God (Jesus) is the savior, He can save how he wants to (as long as it's in His attributes). (° V0;B2;°)By the way, Where does it say in the Bible that God can do what He wants? God can"t sin. God can"t go against any of His attributes. Nowhere. I agree He can't sin or go against His attributes. ? All you did was throw my argument in the trash! Not true, All I did was dismantle it. If you don't understand one of my arguments, That doesn't mean I just threw yours in the trash, It just means your argument wasn't the best. I can't just agree with your argument. . . Proverbs: over and over God says He wants us to know and understand Him. What is the point if you make the argument every time that we cannot understand God? That is not my argument every time. We can understand a little of God, But not all because He is infinite. I'm saying that just because we don't understand God's motives, Doesn't mean what He is doing is unbiblical. There is nothing wrong with that. You completely dismissed my argument on the basis that God"s ways are unknowable. Wrong. Try to understand what I'm actually saying. Otherwise, I'm going to start ignoring these statements. I do not see how my argument here is a straw man. You said that election and salvation are without free will. I explained above why this is a false representation of my belief (which, I remind you, Is a straw man). Once a person is regenerated, They blindly follow and worship a Creator because He placed a "microchip" (if you will) in their brains to cause them to be irresistibly in love with Him. Nope. Read what I actually said. God changes our nature, To where we want to follow Him. Please stop making me restate myself; we've talked about this before. Stop using this straw man (which I have disproved multiple times) against me. It's not helping anyone. Would you want me to consistently and constantly say something like, "Well, If we choose God, Then we're saving ourselves, Therefore, Self-salvation"? You are saying that I "opened" up somewhere for you to attack; rather, Just the opposite. Also, Effectual grace is a better term than irresistible grace. Your parenthetical conclusion (about a person not even knowing about the Kingdom of God prior to regeneration) is not logical. Jesus himself quite literally calls it a secret. Read Mark 4:11. He purposely is not clear to the outsiders. They can't understand. The Pharisees themselves knew/understood about the Kingdom of God. How do you know? The Pharisees had a choiceStop stating things like this constantly and give biblical support. They can't and won't choose God because they are dead in their sins. They can't "ask" God to regenerate themselves becaus they are blind to Him in the first place. I am not worried about every element of salvation being in this verse. It is stating that whoever believes will be saved. That is salvation in a nutshell. You used it like so in your previous argument. "I completely disagree with the fact. . . With the bath water"If some things cannot be fathomed by us, Then they are inherently not understood by us, And inherently not logical to us. God has perfect logic. Also, I'm not saying not to learn more about who He is. That is a biblical concept, I'm saying that some things we need to accept that we won't and can't know about Him. It doesn't have to state it in the Bible, It's a consistent idea, Just like hermeneutics. Are hermeneutics in the Bible? Finally, I am not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, Like I just explained. That isn't a fallacy, That's an idiomatic expression. We may not be able to fathom the Trinity in its entiretyWhich means we can't comprehend it entirely. You're helping my point here. He talks about salvation being a gift in tons of verses you have already heard and know about. Yes, And why do you propose that everyone has a choice to receive it or accept it? Faith comes by hearing! Not hearing by faith! That's not what I said. I said that when we are born again (which is different than faith) we are able to fully hear. Again, You are using. . . PLEASE! and I do not understand. . . Is a workGood point about not changing character, But you have not answered my other point. You said God couldn't save everyone because he wouldn't be different. I'm saying if God saved everyone He would still be different. I'm saying doing so wouldn't go against His character, Please understand. Don't worry about what I said earlier in regards to ultimately "boils. " However, You contradict yourself. You say we have to accept His gift AND ask him to regenerate us AND repent (not just one thing). This is totally a straw man. You have not given an answer to my argument. I think what I did was perfectly fine. What do you mean, Straw man? I'm not misrepresenting your beliefs, I'm just saying why I think your analogy is flawed. Comparing Herod's earthly, Imperfect, And not total sovereignty to God's supernatural and natural, Perfect, And total sovereignty is fallacious! 9. A. Ok; 9. B. OkYou use definitions all the time. Definitions are logical. If one does not study how a sentence is formulated and what is being conveyed by how it is formulated, One will not understand fully what is being saidHuman definitions change, Adding to my point that human logic is not perfect (if like you said definitions are logical), And is not the same as God's. Perhaps it may be useful to you to define what logic is. ( V5;° V0;B2; V5;°) Yes, I use definitions. NO! You literally added the word regenerated in the verse! You can"t add to the Bible! I'm not adding. . . Like I said I am using scripture to interpret scripture. Regenerate is another word for born again, Which is definitely talked about by Jesus. In fact, You are adding with statements such as, "receiving a gift" and "the Pharisees had a choice" and "we ask God to regenerate us. " So, Before you tell me this, Check your statements. . . We simply ask God to regenerate us and He does it out of love. . . . Not in the Bible. I thought all we did was choose to believe in Him. . . . . Like you said. . . Show biblical support. These are not different choices! The whole mystery of the Gospel is reaching out to Gentiles! . . . {whole paragraph}Is there not a difference between serving God and choosing to believe in Him? I can choose to serve God multiple times, I don't choose to believe in Him multiple times. . . The Israelites were given multiple choices to serve God. What are some main issues you have with unconditional election? Why does Jesus not make everything clear to those "outside of the parables? " If he wants everyone to come to Him? I hope I have answered everything. Soli Deo Gloria