I could have said ... God does NOT protect the non-elect of this world!
Your problem is a common one these days caused by ignorance.
I'm just reporting the facts ... without being sidetracked by emotion.
These are the facts, as revealed by the Lord God Almighty in His Scriptures:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm no expert on this, but I believe the verse is saying that God's angels
protect the elect-to-be until they respond positively to the gospel.
Generally, I believe that God leaves the heather (non-elect) to their own devices.
If not, what about so many dying in natural disasters, accidents, etc.?
And what about the many testimonies such as:
"God told me to get out of the house!" 10 minutes before a tornado destroyed it?
Respectfully Mr. Zain, is it a fact (as your top post indicates), or your amature opinion (as your bottom post indicates)?
Honestly, your bottom post is written with humility and acknowledgement of personal opinion and interpretation. The effect this has is that I, the reader, will be more likely to take your opinion seriously and consider it for myself. Positing opinion as fact has the opposite effect, as you can observe by reading the responses, and is generally a poor way to communicate and convince.
Stating facts without a reasonable explanation (one possible interpretation that is only held by 0.1% of the population of the scripture does not count) will only come off as delusional, whether you are correct or not.
If not, what about so many dying in natural disasters, accidents, etc.?
And what about the many testimonies such as:
"God told me to get out of the house!" 10 minutes before a tornado destroyed it?
Well, there is a slight problem to this logic. One will hear data to affirm this notion from certain survivors. People who are killed, however, cannot say, "God didn't tell me to get of the house!" Or, "God told me to prepare for a tornado in 8 hours," when the tornado actually came in ten minutes.
To take these testimonies as evidence to your claim, you would need to establish that those who were warned by God were the elect, while those who were killed
in the same tornado were not God's elect. Otherwise, there are no implications from said testimonies other than God helping an individual. You would also need to find the significance of these claims relative to all survivors. If many people survived, and only a few of them made this claim, maybe there were other factors involved? The problem with having a 'feeling' about something is that we often do, and are often wrong. When we are correct, however, it becomes memorable and significant, we and likely to 'share' these feelings with others, after the fact.
For example, how many times have you been walking through the dark, and thought, "I thought I heard something." Then looking around and seeing there is nothing, you would continue about your business. If you were actually correct and did detect a threat, you would
remember that feeling and would possible attribute some significance to it. I don't know if you have ever been hunting, but deers (and many other animals) do the same. Do you know a pet cat? They are crazy with their 'feelings.'
Thankfully, we have instincts (whether given by God or not, different debate!). Usually these instincts are wrong, but the 'costs' of a false positive is far outweighed by the benefits of a true positive. Or worse yet, a false negative! Think about one's chances of survival with false negatives lol. Good for the predators, however.
Another problem is that we have instincts. These instincts can often help to miraculously and seemingly-without-explanation help us to avoid disaster. So this begs the question, was it God's early warning, or the individuals instincts that saved their life?
Then one must ask, maybe they are one in the same? If God created everything, then he surly created the instincts that saved one's life as well.
So in effect, and with consideration for the previous question, God did 'warn' about danger indirectly via his gift of the instinct. To complicate things, religious folk have an affinity for divine communication, whether true or not is not my place to say. But regardless, the religious folk may
interpret their instincts as divine communication. And again, they may be one and the same. But, the result will be that those who survived, who also are religious, may attribute it to God's warning. Those who survived, who are not religious, may attribute it to their instincts.
So in a plausible case where instincts and divine warning are the same, the religious folk will provide the perspective that God singled them out to be spared, when the non-religious folk did not. This could then be falsely interpreted as God saving the elect, when both were in fact saved by identical, possibly God-given forces, albeit with semantical and religious differences of perspective.
I am not saying that's how it works. What I am saying, is that to make a case for God saving
only his elect, one has to deal with all plausible scenarios that could account for the same end result.
