Jacob and Esau

[TomL]

Firstly, we have the witness that they were trying to crush each other to pieces in the womb. That is the meaning of the word, ratsats in Gen 25:22,
ratsats: to crush
Original Word: רָצַץ
Definition: to crush, to crush to pieces, and in the reciprocal use, to crush each other to pieces... NOT to struggle wrestle nor jostle each other. Why do the commentators all change this word to deny their destructive intent? Because it does not conform to their belief that they are newly created as tabula rasa and is an eisegetic expression of their belief, not the actual meaning of the word.

(rṣṣ), vb. mistreat, oppress; shatter, smash, smite, strike down. Greek equiv. fr. LXX: θλάω (6), θραύω (2), ἐκπιέζω (1), κλάω (1).
Verb Usage
1. to break (destroy)† — to destroy the integrity of; usually by force; cause to separate into pieces or fragments. Stems: nifal, 1. See also שׁבר 1. Related Topic: Break.
nifal
Eze 29:7 בְּתָפְשָׂ֨ם בְּךָ֤ בַכַּפְךָ תֵּר֔וֹץ
—
2. to oppress† — to come down on or keep down by unjust use of one’s authority. Stems: qal, 3; piel, 2. Related Topics: Oppression; Oppressor.
qal
1 Sa 12:3 וְאֶת־מִ֤י עָשַׁ֙קְתִּי֙ אֶת־מִ֣י רַצּ֔וֹתִי
1 Sa 12:4 וְלֹ֣א רַצּוֹתָ֑נוּ
Am 4:1 הָעֹשְׁק֣וֹת דַּלִּ֔ים הָרֹצְצ֖וֹת אֶבְיוֹנִ֑ים
piel
Job 20:19 כִּֽי־רִ֭צַּץ עָזַ֣ב דַּלִּ֑ים
2 Ch 16:10 וַיְרַצֵּ֥ץ אָסָ֛א מִן־הָעָ֖ם
—
3. to crush (break in pieces)† — to break into small pieces. Stems: hifil, 1; poel, 1; piel, 1. Related Topic: Break.
hifil
Jdg 9:53 וַתָּ֖רִץ אֶת־גֻּלְגָּלְתּֽוֹ׃
poel
Jdg 10:8 וַֽיִּרְעֲצ֤וּ וַיְרֹֽצְצוּ֙
piel
Ps 74:14 אַתָּ֣ה רִ֭צַּצְתָּ רָאשֵׁ֣י לִוְיָתָ֑ן
—
4. to be crushed (broken) — to be broken into small pieces. Stems: qal, 5; nifal, 1. Related Topic: Break.
qal
2 Ki 18:21|| עַל־מִשְׁעֶנֶת֩ הַקָּנֶ֨ה הָרָצ֤וּץ הַזֶּה֙
Is 36:6|| עַל־מִשְׁעֶנֶת֩ הַקָּנֶ֨ה הָרָצ֤וּץ הַזֶּה֙
Is 42:3 קָנֶ֤ה רָצוּץ֙ לֹ֣א יִשְׁבּ֔וֹר
Is 42:4 לֹ֤א יִכְהֶה֙ וְלֹ֣א יָר֔וּץ
Ec 12:6 וְתָרֻ֖ץ גֻּלַּ֣ת הַזָּהָ֑ב
nifal
Ec 12:6 וְנָרֹ֥ץ הַגַּלְגַּ֖ל
—
5. to struggle† — to make a strenuous or labored effort; often, but not necessarily, physical. Stems: hitpoel, 1. Related Topic: Labor.
hitpoel
Ge 25:22 וַיִּתְרֹֽצֲצ֤וּ הַבָּנִים֙
—
6. to be oppressed (state)† — to be in a state of burden; perhaps due to imprisonment. Stems: qal, 3. Related Topics: Oppression; Oppressor.
qal
Dt 28:33 רַ֛ק עָשׁ֥וּק וְרָצ֖וּץ
Is 58:6 וְשַׁלַּ֤ח רְצוּצִים֙ חָפְשִׁ֔ים
Ho 5:11 עָשׁ֥וּק אֶפְרַ֖יִם רְצ֣וּץ מִשְׁפָּ֑ט
Rick Brannan, ed., Lexham Research Lexicon of the Hebrew Bible (Lexham Research Lexicons; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020).

8368 רָצַץ (rā·ṣǎṣ): v.; ≡ Str 7533; TWOT 2212—1. LN 22.21–22.28 (qal) oppress, i.e., cause the trouble, hardship, and harassment of an opponent or enemy, as a figurative extension of hitting an object with physical impact (1Sa 12:3, 4; Am 4:1+); (qal pass.) oppress (Dt 28:33; Isa 58:6; Hos 5:11+); (nif) oppressed, feel discouragement of oppression (Isa 42:4 cj+), see also domain LN 25.288–25.296; (piel) oppress (2Ch 16:10; Job 20:19+); (polel) oppress (Jdg 10:8+); 2. LN 19.1–19.13 (qal) break, smash, i.e., make physical impact on an object by hitting or striking, with the result being a shattering or splintering of a relatively brittle object into pieces or strips (2Ki 23:12; Ecc 12:6a+); (qal pass.) be smashed, broken, splintered (2Ki 18:21; Isa 36:6; 42:3+); (nif) broken, be splintered (Ecc 12:6b; Eze 29:7+); (piel) crack open, crush (Ps 74:14+); (hif) crack open, crush to pieces (Jdg 9:53+), note: see also domain LN 19.34–19.42; 3. LN 50 (hitpolel) struggle together, jostle each other, i.e., have a physical contest to gain a superior position over an opponent, as in a wrestling match (Ge 25:22+), note: some parse Isa 42:4 and 2Ki 23:12 as 8132

James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

7533. רָצַץ rāṣāṣ: A verb meaning to break; to crush; to oppress. It is used of infants tussling while still in the womb, pushing on each other (Gen. 25:22). It describes one nation crushing, oppressing another nation as part of God’s judgments (Deut. 28:33; Judg. 10:8). It refers to physically crushing something, e.g., a person’s head (Judg. 9:53); or other physical objects (2 Kgs. 23:12). It is used of treating another person unfairly or violently in any way, even unknowingly (1 Sam. 12:3, 4). It describes the smashing of Leviathan’s head, the monster’s head (Ps. 74:14). Its use in Ecclesiastes 12:6 is figurative, breaking the golden bowl of life, dying. Egypt is figuratively described as a crushed reed (Isa. 36:6). It describes the breaking or ripping open of a person’s hands, again in a figurative sense of nations (Ezek. 29:7). Crushed by judgment from God describes the state of a nation receiving God’s devastating blows (Hos. 5:11). The rich cows of Bashan women are described as crushing the needy to meet their luxurious needs (Amos 4:1)

Warren Baker and Eugene E. Carpenter, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2003), 1075–1076.

 

[TedT]

The beginning of what? Life of all of mankind as sinners by GOD's decree??? I don't think so!!

Where did God decree such?

I deny that HE made all of mankind to be sinners in Adam without any free will decision to be rebellious made by any of them.

Orthodoxy accepts that GOD decreed that Adam's sinfulness must accrue to his descendents since they believe we are created at conception as sinners and their sin must have come from somewhere outside of themselves. The so called 'proof' HE must have done so is supposedly found in the death of infants for death is the wages of sin, not a consequence of life.

I deny HE made any decree forcing Adam's descendents to be sinful, ie, liable to death and suffering, by HIS own will but that we all became sinners by our own free will choice to be sinful in HIS sight.

 

[TedT]

Verb Usage

7533. רָצַץ rāṣāṣ: A verb meaning to break; to crush; to oppress. It is used of infants tussling while still in the womb, pushing on each other

I'm glad you found this contradiction between what the verb means and how it is eisegetically used! Obviously their efforts were not successful since as infants they could only tussle but their intent to be first born certainly included a sinful hostility, eh?

So, seriously, what about the extra knowledge these infants in the womb must have had to be fighting in the womb so hard Rebecca sought GOD about it?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I deny that HE made all of mankind to be sinners in Adam without any free will decision to be rebellious made by any of them.

Orthodoxy accepts that GOD decreed that Adam's sinfulness must accrue to his descendents since they believe we are created at conception as sinners and their sin must have come from somewhere outside of themselves. The so called 'proof' HE must have done so is supposedly found in the death of infants for death is the wages of sin, not a consequence of life.

I deny HE made any decree forcing Adam's descendents to be sinful, ie, liable to death and suffering, by HIS own will but that we all became sinners by our own free will choice to be sinful in HIS sight.

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

There is much to say about Romans 8:20. The subjugation of humanity to vanity isn't the subjugation to sin. It is subjugation to weakness and frailty that most often leads to sin. The dramatic contrast here to the fact God did this for the HOPE of all of humanity. Not the purpose of damnation.

At most every level what the Calvinists believes is contrary to Scriptures.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm glad you found this contradiction between what the verb means and how it is eisegetically used! Obviously their efforts were not successful since as infants they could only tussle but their intent to be first born certainly included a sinful hostility, eh?

So, seriously, what about the extra knowledge these infants in the womb must have had to be fighting in the womb so hard Rebecca sought GOD about it?

They were not harming each other. Like I said, you're partially right.

Many women have pain when they have twins. Twins do struggle for the same space. The "crushing" aspect is prophetic. It is the bruising of humanity in Jacob/Christ becoming like the first Adam. The Incarnation.

I'm curious what your history is in theology? You remind me of what LDS or Mormons teach.

 

[TomL]

I'm glad you found this contradiction between what the verb means and how it is eisegetically used! Obviously their efforts were not successful since as infants they could only tussle but their intent to be first born certainly included a sinful hostility, eh?

So, seriously, what about the extra knowledge these infants in the womb must have had to be fighting in the womb so hard Rebecca sought GOD about it?

Word meaning is all I have to contribute at this time

 

[TomL]

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

There is much to say about Romans 8:20. The subjugation of humanity to vanity isn't the subjugation to sin. It is subjugation to weakness and frailty that most often leads to sin. The dramatic contrast here to the fact God did this for the HOPE of all of humanity. Not the purpose of damnation.

At most every level what the Calvinists believes is contrary to Scriptures.

And death. God did not desire us to live forever in a state of unending sinfulness

 

[TedT]

I'm curious what your history is in theology? You remind me of what LDS or Mormons teach.

...and I'm curious about the gnostic-masonic and Catholic flavour to some of your thoughts. Overlap is inevitable, eh?

Iow, when I was bouncing between the denominations and current theologies in the 70s, I realized there was a great overlap of ideas which were shared and very few which separated one denomination from another.

The idea of our pre-conception existence, our pre-earth life, is an ancient belief, not just a latter day deviation.

In rabbinic literature, the souls of all humanity are described as being created during the six days of creation (Book of Genesis). When each person is born, a preexisting soul is placed within the body. (See Tan., Pekude, 3). Tan., Pekude, 3: http://tinyurl.com/cnpetph.

In
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12340-preexistence-of-the-soul, the Rabbis question whether the soul descends to earth at the moment of conception or after the embryo has been formed (Sanh. 90a). This is reminiscent of the idea we are sown into this world as taught in Matt 13:36-39.

Origen of Alexandria ( c. 185 – c. 253), also known as Origen Adamantius, was an early Christian scholar, ascetic, and theologian. He was a very early theologian whom many consider to be the Father of Christian theology and he supported the idea mankind's pre-conception existence.

And in the The Douay–Rheims Bible, the Catholic translation from the Latin Vulgate c384, we find:
The Wisdom of Solomon 8:20 (NEB) - As a child, I was born to excellence and a noble soul fell to my lot; or rather, I myself was noble, and I entered into an unblemished body ......
(JB) - I was a boy of happy disposition. I had received a good soul as my lot, or that, being good, I had entered an undefiled body.

Now I must note that I do not depend upon these writings for my understanding of our pce but only mention them to attest to the fact that the idea of our pre-conception existence is not a new doctrine unheard of before and that the Mormon expression of our pce is not the only one and is in fact, so far from ordinary Christianity as to be unbelievable. We were denounced by three Mormon elders as following a false spirit in our PCE and maybe even cursed though I don't remember so well from 50 some years ago.

I find differences between our PCE and orthodoxy in the ideas about our creation, our free will, our fall, and our election but our understanding of our salvation in Christ and the Trinity etc is very ordinary and protestant although Origen's Christology seems like a disaster to me, sigh.

 

[praise_yeshua]

...and I'm curious about the gnostic-masonic and Catholic flavour to some of your thoughts. Overlap is inevitable, eh?

Correct. Overlap is inevitable. However, I've never considered myself gnostic nor "masonic" in any way. Any sense of historic Christian will seem "Catholic" to some degree. I reject apostolic continuation, transubstantiation, a "priestly order" that can forgive sins and many other Catholic teachings. Good to know you're a "Brit". I've traced my ancestry to nonconformists. Not that it matters but I do consider myself a general "nonconformists" in many ways. I'm interested in your honest assessment of my "gnostic-masonic" ways...

Iow, when I was bouncing between the denominations and current theologies in the 70s, I realized there was a great overlap of ideas which were shared and very few which separated one denomination from another.

There are meaningful distinctions but there many that are not "that meaningful".

The idea of our pre-conception existence, our pre-earth life, is an ancient belief, not just a latter day deviation..

In rabbinic literature, the souls of all humanity are described as being created during the six days of creation (Book of Genesis). When each person is born, a preexisting soul is placed within the body. (See Tan., Pekude, 3). Tan., Pekude, 3: http://tinyurl.com/cnpetph.

I'm glad you're educated enough to know this. Yes. It is very old and challenges modern accepted narratives. However, I would argue that there is no evidence of such among the canonical texts of the NT writers. I'm open to evidence otherwise

In
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12340-preexistence-of-the-soul, the Rabbis question whether the soul descends to earth at the moment of conception or after the embryo has been formed (Sanh. 90a). This is reminiscent of the idea we are sown into this world as taught in Matt 13:36-39.

The primary source of that information is found in Enoch. No one can take the extant book of Enoch seriously as a whole. It has changed significantly over time. Why wouldn't it? It only survived the flood among 8 people. Enoch is a very important person but we do not have evidence that establishes him more than the 7th from Adam. Which is significant. Adam lived to see Enoch born. It is my belief that Adam trained Enoch about God.

Origen of Alexandria ( c. 185 – c. 253), also known as Origen Adamantius, was an early Christian scholar, ascetic, and theologian. He was a very early theologian whom many consider to be the Father of Christian theology and he supported the idea mankind's pre-conception existence.

I have a low opinion of Origen. He is extraordinarily inconsistent in almost everything.

And in the The Douay–Rheims Bible, the Catholic translation from the Latin Vulgate c384, we find:
The Wisdom of Solomon 8:20 (NEB) - As a child, I was born to excellence and a noble soul fell to my lot; or rather, I myself was noble, and I entered into an unblemished body ......
(JB) - I was a boy of happy disposition. I had received a good soul as my lot, or that, being good, I had entered an undefiled body.

The Vulgate.... Now that is a great topic of discussion. Care to share your source for the text of the work of Jerome? Relative to Codices, which do you believe represents the actual work of Jerome. Jerome never finished the Vulgate. He often used Aramaic and Greek sources because he could not find adequate Hebrew sources. His appeal to "Hebrew priority" was ridiculous. The Douay–Rheims is simply a English translation of various Latin manuscripts that came from less than stellar "stock".

Wisdom 8:20 speaks of innocence. We know it doesn't teach what you're claiming because of what is written in Wisdom chapter 7.

Wis 7:1 I myself am a mortal man, like all others, and of the race of him, that was first made of the earth, and in the womb of my mother I was fashioned to be flesh.

Now I must note that I do not depend upon these writings for my understanding of our pce but only mention them to attest to the fact that the idea of our pre-conception existence is not a new doctrine unheard of before and that the Mormon expression of our pce is not the only one and is in fact, so far from ordinary Christianity as to be unbelievable. We were denounced by three Mormon elders as following a false spirit in our PCE and maybe even cursed though I don't remember so well from 50 some years ago.

I find differences between our PCE and orthodoxy in the ideas about our creation, our free will, our fall, and our election but our understanding of our salvation in Christ and the Trinity etc is very ordinary and protestant although Origen's Christology seems like a disaster to me, sigh.

We agree with most of the facts you list but I reject any sense of PCE.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Origin is not the originator of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Holy Trinity is not dependent upon him. "Even a blind squirrel finds an nut every once in a while. "

 

[Presby02]

One cannot ignore the context in regards to two nations, being applied to Rom 9.
Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

They were also two individuals.

 

[TomL]

They were also two individuals.

Selected to be the head of the lineage through God would work to bring salvation to the world

Nothing there about unconditional election to salvation

 

[Presby02]

Selected to be the head of the lineage through God would work to bring salvation to the world

Nothing there about unconditional election to salvation

He did choose one over the other. He did choose Israel. He did choose who He was going to save "from the beginning." Among many other things.

 

[TomL]

He did choose one over the other. He did choose Israel. He did choose who He was going to save "from the beginning." Among many other things.

And all Israel was not saved

It was not about unconditional election to salvation

Nothing states men were unconditionally chosen to salvation

 

[Presby02]

And all Israel was not saved

It was not about unconditional election to salvation

Nothing states men were unconditionally chosen to salvation

Who said they were?

Who said it was?

What conditions could you meet when you were chosen from the beginning?

 

[TomL]

Who said they were?

Who said it was?

What conditions could you meet when you were chosen from the beginning?

You have to show both false

God has no foreknowledge of man - Arminian salvation through foreknowledge

The plan was simply to save those who believe without individual selection before the foundation of the earth - corporate election

 

[Presby02]

You have to show both false

God has no foreknowledge of man - Arminian salvation through foreknowledge

The plan was simply to save those who believe without individual selection before the foundation of the earth - corporate election

No I don't.

Second paragraph is incoherent.

Not what it says. It says He has chosen you from the beginning for salvation. No mention of a "plan"

 

[TomL]

No I don't.

Second paragraph is incoherent.

Not what it says. It says He has chosen you from the beginning for salvation. No mention of a "plan"

That is nothing more than denial

I noted two possibilities how men can be chosen before the foundation of the earth without unconditional election and you just ignore them

the "you" are believers - those in Christ

Context matters

Ephesians 1:1 (ESV) — 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:


Nothing there states they were men unconditionally chosen. Your theology just assumes that

all their blessing are in Christ

Ephesians 1:3 (ESV) — 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

it is in Christ they are chosen to be holy and blameless

Ephesians 1:4 (ESV) — 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

so they have to be in Christ before being chosen

Now this could either be based on God's foreknowledge

or his corporate election where he determined all in Christ would be chosen to be holy and blameless

but it cannot be unconditional because all those blessing are in Christ

and one is not in Christ until he believes trusts in Christ

Ephesians 1:13 (ESV) — 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

and that transpires in time

Romans 16:7 (ESV) — 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

 

[Presby02]

That is nothing more than denial

I noted two possibilities how men can be chosen before the foundation of the earth without unconditional election and you just ignore them

the "you" are believers - those in Christ

Context matters

Ephesians 1:1 (ESV) — 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:


Nothing there states they were men unconditionally chosen. Your theology just assumes that

all their blessing are in Christ

Ephesians 1:3 (ESV) — 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

it is in Christ they are chosen to be holy and blameless

Ephesians 1:4 (ESV) — 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

so they have to be in Christ before being chosen

Now this could either be based on God's foreknowledge

or his corporate election where he determined all in Christ would be chosen to be holy and blameless

but it cannot be unconditional because all those blessing are in Christ

and one is not in Christ until he believes trusts in Christ

Ephesians 1:13 (ESV) — 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

and that transpires in time

Romans 16:7 (ESV) — 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Of course I do. Your simply trying your best to explain away what it says by simply avoiding it altogether and running off somewhere else.

Plan B I take it since the "plan" excuse was not cutting it.

It says He choose them for salvation from the beginning.

 

[TomL]

Of course I do. Your simply trying your best to explain away what it says by simply avoiding it altogether and running off somewhere else.

Plan B I take it since the "plan" excuse was not cutting it.

It says He choose them for salvation from the beginning.

Sorry but there was no running off

verses 1, 3, 4 in context, and verse 13 were all addressed and shown to refute your claim

and you just dismissed it

That is nothing more than denial

I noted two possibilities how men can be chosen before the foundation of the earth without unconditional election and you just ignore them

the "you" are believers - those in Christ

Context matters

Ephesians 1:1 (ESV) — 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:


Nothing there states they were men unconditionally chosen. Your theology just assumes that

You do not address this

all their blessing are in Christ

Ephesians 1:3 (ESV) — 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

You did not address this

it is in Christ they are chosen to be holy and blameless

Ephesians 1:4 (ESV) — 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

so they have to be in Christ before being chosen

You did not address this either

Now this could either be based on God's foreknowledge

or his corporate election where he determined all in Christ would be chosen to be holy and blameless

but it cannot be unconditional because all those blessing are in Christ

You did not address this either

and one is not in Christ until he believes trusts in Christ

Ephesians 1:13 (ESV) — 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

and that transpires in time

Romans 16:7 (ESV) — 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

and of coyrse you do not address this

 

[Presby02]

Sorry but there was no running off

verses 1, 3, 4 in context, and verse 13 were all addressed and shown to refute your claim

and you just dismissed it

That is nothing more than denial

I noted two possibilities how men can be chosen before the foundation of the earth without unconditional election and you just ignore them

the "you" are believers - those in Christ

Context matters

Ephesians 1:1 (ESV) — 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus:


Nothing there states they were men unconditionally chosen. Your theology just assumes that

You do not address this

all their blessing are in Christ

Ephesians 1:3 (ESV) — 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

You did not address this

it is in Christ they are chosen to be holy and blameless

Ephesians 1:4 (ESV) — 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

so they have to be in Christ before being chosen

You did not address this either

Now this could either be based on God's foreknowledge

or his corporate election where he determined all in Christ would be chosen to be holy and blameless

but it cannot be unconditional because all those blessing are in Christ

You did not address this either

and one is not in Christ until he believes trusts in Christ

Ephesians 1:13 (ESV) — 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,

and that transpires in time

Romans 16:7 (ESV) — 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

and of coyrse you do not address this

Sorry, the does not refute God had from the beginning chose them for salvation.

No mention of any "plan"