Eventide,
For the sake of avoiding confusion on semantics,
the word "special" is used here as an adjective - ie it describes the inherent trait of something or someone as being
"distinct/different among others of a kind". Are there any disagreements here?
God chooses YOU unconditionally.
Yes, this is a work of God according to His will. To apply the word "special" here - consider the various groups of a kind in context here. There is me w.r.t. the group of all other people like me. And then there is this work of God in choosing me w.r.t. His works of choice in others. What do you find inherently different/distinct here? Is there a difference in any inherent trait in me w.r.t. others or is there a difference in God's work of choosing w.r.t. His not choosing to have mercy upon another? Since you yourself have stated that it is "unconditional" choosing, this rules out the choosing to be based on any inherent traits in me - leaving only His work of election to be distinct/different.
So what's "special" is God's work of election, regeneration and salvation - and not me in any way. Who wouldn't agree to the fact that God's work of salvation is special when compared to the absence of such a work by God? But me - I am in no way inherently different from another. You keep making the point that I am "special" as if there is some inherent difference in me w.r.t. the others - which as I've shown here, is not the case. Are you satisfied?
It is the freewill theology that implies one to be inherently better than another. And this is what I'm seeking to get clarified from you. And you simply refuse to give any direct answers - I fail to see how that can be unintentional given the time and the prompting from my side. Like I said earlier, I don't mind you telling me you do not want to reply - but this obvious evasion is not becoming of a good discussion. You raised your concerns - and I'm dealing with your concerns here. I have seen to the progression of this discussion from my side. Now, I have raised my concerns in my last post too - and I'm awaiting a progression from your side or at least the basic courtesy to say you will not be responding to them at all.
If you really don't see any issues with your theology, why can't you simply state your beliefs as they are? Why the need for all this evasion? The longer you put off replying, the more you're giving room for the implication that there are certain pitfalls in your belief framework that you're not ready to tackle as yet. And if that's really the case, I'm saying that's fine - just be open about it when you have shown your intent to participate in a discussion deriding every belief opposing yours on this matter.
And then you have the audacity to call others dishonest..
I have never called anybody dishonest. I have stated that it's reasonable to suspect that one who evades a particular point in discussion isn't being entirely honest. Calling somebody as dishonest is an outright accusation - which I have never done. Suspecting them of it is another matter - I seek clarification on the same.
I wish you to read this post as if I've stated whatever I have stated here in a matter-of-fact tone and not in a personally complaining tone. You are unhappy with moderators not permitting you to carry on a full discussion - and when you're called on one, you don't carry it on anyways. That just seems inconsistent.
Evidently you can't live with being labeled special.
I can't live with the flesh receiving any glory when it deserves none whatsoever.
