The Unconditional Election Debate: An Universalist Perspective

[brightfame52]

He was born in the flesh.

Yes but not in sinful flesh, just the likeness of it Rom 8:3

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

If it wasnt no such thing as sinful flesh, it would be unnecessary for Paul to write it like that.

Elliot writes:

In the likeness of sinful flesh—i.e., in the flesh, but not in sinful flesh. With a human body which was so far like the physical organisation of the rest of mankind, but yet which was not in Him, as in other men, the seat of sin; at once like and unlike.

Barnes writes:

God, sending his own Son - That is, God did, or accomplished, that, by sending his Son, which the Law could not do. The word did, or accomplished, it is necessary to understand here, in order to complete the sense.In the likeness of sinful flesh - That is, he so far resembled sinful flesh that he partook of flesh, or the nature of man, but without any of its sinful propensities or desires. It was not human nature; not, as the Docetae taught, human nature in appearance only; but it was human nature Without any of its corruptions.

Matt Poole

In the likeness of sinful flesh; i.e. such flesh as sin hath made now to be subject to many infirmities and weaknesses. Flesh in this clause carries quite another sense than it did in the first verse; and in the former part of this verse, than it doth in the following verse; there it is taken morally for the corrupt nature of man, here physically for the human nature of Christ. The word likeness is to be linked, not with flesh, but with sinful flesh; he had true and real flesh, but he had only the appearance and likeness of sinful flesh: see 2 Corinthians 5:21 Hebrews 4:15 7:26 1 Peter 1:19.

Gill writes

in which he was sent, "in the likeness of sinful flesh"; which expresses the reality of his incarnation, of his having a true real human nature; for flesh is not to be taken strictly for a part of the body, nor for the whole body only, but for the whole human nature, soul and body; which though it looked like a sinful nature, yet was not sinful: the likeness of it denotes the outward appearance of Christ in it; who was born of a sinful woman; was subject to the infirmities of human nature, which though not sinful, are the effects of sin;

 

[civic]

Okay I disagree with you. I believe you in error in that regard, nothing I can do to change that. Now that said, according to my convictions and according to Rom 8:8 they which be in the flesh are the unregenerate without the Spirit as its stated in Jude here Jude 1:19

These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

As such they cant please God. You can be as religous and sincere , moral honest as can be, but they never can please God. Mans only hope of pleasing God is first being born again, otherwise as Jesus said Jn 3:6-7

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

But Jesus in the flesh didnt need to be born again, He was without sin and or sin nature.

flesh has "context" just like any other word used in the bible to figure out its meaning.

 

[brightfame52]

flesh has "context" just like any other word used in the bible to figure out its meaning.

Hey Im not going back and forth with you on it. You see my position

Post in thread 'The Unconditional Election Debate: An Universalist Perspective'

Jan 27, 2026

He was born in the flesh.

Yes but not in sinful flesh, just the likeness of it Rom 8:3

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

If it wasnt no such thing as sinful flesh, it would be unnecessary for Paul to write it like that.

Elliot writes:

In the likeness of sinful flesh—i.e., in the flesh, but not in sinful flesh. With a human body which was so far like the physical organisation of the rest of mankind, but yet which was not in Him, as...

• brightfame52

 

[civic]

Hey Im not going back and forth with you on it. You see my position

Post in thread 'The Unconditional Election Debate: An Universalist Perspective'

Jan 27, 2026

He was born in the flesh.

Yes but not in sinful flesh, just the likeness of it Rom 8:3

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

If it wasnt no such thing as sinful flesh, it would be unnecessary for Paul to write it like that.

Elliot writes:

In the likeness of sinful flesh—i.e., in the flesh, but not in sinful flesh. With a human body which was so far like the physical organisation of the rest of mankind, but yet which was not in Him, as...

• brightfame52

i don't care what your appeal to authority has to say since its not what the bible states as fact. I'm not interested in eisegesis.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Yes but not in sinful flesh, just the likeness of it Rom 8:3

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

If it wasnt no such thing as sinful flesh, it would be unnecessary for Paul to write it like that.

Elliot writes:



Barnes writes:



Matt Poole



Gill writes

@brightfame52,

I wish you would change subjects because you have your beliefs and we have what we know and neither will change because both claim to be right.

Why don't you get into something more fun and lets talk Theophany........?

 

[civic]

@brightfame52,

I wish you would change subjects because you have your beliefs and we have what we know and neither will change because both claim to be right.

Why don't you get into something more fun and lets talk Theophany........?

It’s all about TD and election for some

 

[praise_yeshua]

It’s all about TD and election for some

Got to make sure they protect themselves.....

 

[brightfame52]

Salvation by Grace is also Salvation by unconditional election of Grace without works or conditions :

Paul was saying in Romans 11:6 that if election/salvation are by grace then it cannot be by any works at all. If salvation is by grace it is by what God alone does, and not at all by anything a man does. If salvation came after a man did something—if salvation is a response of God’s after a work of man’s—it would be salvation by works https://www.godsonlygospel.com/by-grace-alone-24

Rom 11:5-6

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works/conditions: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Also Salvation by Grace means Salvation is reserved for only a remnant.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Salvation by Grace is also Salvation by unconditional election of Grace without works or conditions :

Paul was saying in Romans 11:6 that if election/salvation are by grace then it cannot be by any works at all. If salvation is by grace it is by what God alone does, and not at all by anything a man does. If salvation came after a man did something—if salvation is a response of God’s after a work of man’s—it would be salvation by works https://www.godsonlygospel.com/by-grace-alone-24

Rom 11:5-6

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works/conditions: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Also Salvation by Grace means Salvation is reserved for only a remnant.

Romans 11:6 is being stretched far beyond what Paul actually says.

Paul contrasts grace vs. works, not grace vs. faith, not grace vs. choosing, and not grace vs. responding.

“Works” are attempts to earn salvation.

Faith is not earning — it is simply receiving.

If trusting Christ is called a “work,” then everything becomes a work and Paul’s argument collapses. Receiving a gift is not the same thing as earning it.

Grace means salvation is not merited.
It does not mean man is passive or that God believes for you.

If salvation required zero response, then half the Bible makes no sense.

God repeatedly commands people to act:
Choose life (Deut 30:19) , Turn and live (Ezek 18:30–32) , Repent (Acts 17:30) , Believe (Acts 16:31) , Whoever will may come (Rev 22:17)

Commands imply responsibility. Responsibility implies ability to respond. Otherwise God would be commanding the impossible and then judging people for not doing what they were never capable of doing.

That is not grace — that would be cruelty.

Romans 11 itself disproves unconditional election. Paul explains exactly why some were cut off:

“because of unbelief they were broken off” (Rom 11:20)

Not “because they weren’t chosen.”
Not “because God withheld grace.”
But because of unbelief.

Unbelief is their responsibility. Belief is the required response.

The “remnant” in Romans 11 isn’t an arbitrarily preselected group — it’s simply the Jews who believed while the rest rejected Christ. That’s faith, not fatalism.

Grace means salvation cannot be earned.
It does NOT mean man cannot accept or reject.

A gift can be freely given and still refused.

Calling faith a “work” is just redefining words to protect a system that Paul never taught.

 

[brightfame52]

Romans 11:6 is being stretched far beyond what Paul actually says.

No its not. Its enlightening, Salvation by Grace is none other than Salvation by being of the election of grace, unconditional election. You add any conditions, forget about Salvation by Grace

 

[FreeInChrist]

No its not. Its enlightening, Salvation by Grace is none other than Salvation by being of the election of grace, unconditional election. You add any conditions, forget about Salvation by Grace

Let’s be honest — claiming Romans 11:6 proves unconditional election is a neat trick of circular reasoning: you define grace as “unconditional election,” then point to Romans 11:6 and say, “See? I’m right.” Congratulations, you just proved your own assumption, not Scripture.

Paul isn’t teaching that humans are incapable of faith or that God preselects people to damnation for fun. He’s saying salvation isn’t earned by works. Faith receives God’s gift — that’s it. Commands like “choose life”, “repent”, and “whoever believes will be saved” exist because God expects a real human response. Unbelief is blamed on the people (Rom 11:20), not some cosmic lottery of damnation.

So, if you’re comfortable saying God deliberately damns people for pleasure and then claiming that’s grace… well, enjoy that theology at dinner with your kids someday. Scripture doesn’t teach it — you just dressed it up with Romans 11:6.

Grace is a gift. Faith receives it. That’s all Paul says. Stop redefining words to save a doctrine that collapses under its own cruelty.

 

[brightfame52]

Let’s be honest — claiming Romans 11:6 proves unconditional election is a neat trick of circular reasoning

To be honest, Its the Gospel of Gods Grace. Unconditional election of grace. And its only for a remnant

 

[brightfame52]

Grace is a gift. Faith receives it.

So is Faith a Gift and Grace gives it to the elect. Its given as a gift to believe on the name of Jesus Christ Phil 1:29

29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Smith's Literal Translation

For upon you was it conferred as a favor for Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him

The word given is the greek word ἐχαρίσθη derived from charis; which is Grace a gift