As if that were a good thing....and as if God actually desired for any to perish!
It was not out of context. I told you what it was----the NT revealing something that was in the OT. Try listening.
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—
It is not an insult to try and make someone aware of the fact that they do not have the knowledge they need to say the things they are saying. It should encourage you to obtain the knowledge you need on whatever it is you are talking about. You have illustrated, even said, that your portrayal of Calvinism is based on an emotional reaction. What you say Calvinism is shows that you do not know what it really is---it is the Calvinist that know that. Those who have studied it, and understand it----who never think they know or understand it all but learn continuously from the scriptures themselves. Instead you tell them no, what they say about Calvinism is not right---what you say about it is. You offer what you feel about Calvinism, what you think it is, and say then that is what it is.
Don't confuse application with meaning. The meaning of a scripture comes first, and then it can be properly applied. A scripture always only has one meaning and that meaning is what God meant as the author behind the author. People wrongly apply scriptures all the time because they have not ascertained its correct meaning.
Assertion. You are only showing disagreement —not showing your arguments as to WHY.
They do choose. Don't pretend Calvinism claims otherwise.
What would I do? I'd tell you that you don't know what the word of the Lord is.
Eternal security has nothing to do with feeling secure. It has everything to do with God accomplishing what he set out to do.
No. Calvinism agrees with Scripture, that God will save those to whom he chose to show mercy. THERE is my security, and in the fact that he saves us FOR HIS OWN SAKE, in which I find confident satisfaction, knowing that relying on the mercy of God is a more sure thing than to have any trust in my fickle commitment.
Try reading that again.
Unconditional in the TULIP refers to the one chosen. Not God. God always has a purpose in what He does. It is not conditioned on the attributes or shortcomings of the individual. IOW it has nothing to do with what they are going to do or not do, their character, their position in life, ethnicity, where they live etc. He chooses before they have done anything good or bad. Certainly not because He looks into the future and sees they will choose Christ and that is what makes them His elect. That would not even be choosing. It would be choosing what already chose itself and because it chose itself. That would be merit based salvation.
That reaction is a result of the suggestion that God could ever be arbitrary in anything. It would completely violate who He is---but then that seems to be a shortcoming on the free will side, knowing and accepting who He is as self revealed. The objection is to the statements that any such doctrine of God as arbitrary would exist.
Only is you apply it to the wrong One. God has a reason when He elects someone, but it has nothing to do with any merit of our own. Why do we think that if we don't know something, then it doesn't exist? Why all the insisting that God is like us and He must be like us?
Maybe you should restate that line. I don't think that's quite what you meant.
Why do we think that something can't exist simply because we don't know it?
You've offered no "substance", so we're done here.
Nice duck out
Chuckle!!! God
God
God
Watch the histrionics of language. Calvinists do not worship a different God, but the one true and living God. They accept and trust Him as He is, recognizing that He knows all things, and by comparison, we know next to nothing. He is infinite. We are finite. He is the Creator. We are the creature. If you would see HIm as a monster for choosing who shall live in His house and inherit His kingdom, what do you have to say about the things He instructed the Israelites to do to other nations?
Maybe you are having difficulty with the word "unconditional" and who it applies to, and how to apply it? You answered all the questions right and still came up applying "unconditional" in the wrong way. God's choice is not conditioned on anything in the person. He always has a purpose in what He does, even in choosing who dwells in His kingdom, and who to pass over. But that purpose is not based on the merits or demerits of the person. It is all for His glory and to fulfill His purposes, and that is the only detail He gives us in the matter. We do not know His reason for choosing one over another. He does not tell us.
That would be "Conditional", since the election is based on specific USES for the person involved. if the person couldn't function in that purpose, they wouldn't be "Elect"
HIS CONDITION!!!!!
God tells us. Listen to Him. "Before either of them had done anything good or bad." So adjust your opinion of what it means that God hated Esau and simply believe what the scriptures are stating instead of trying to adjust them to be what you prefer or already believe. Paul also asks the rhetorical question, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? And again God says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
To put it nicely, @Bob Carabbio is objecting only to the way TULIP calls it "unconditional". He is unable to argue the point of what the statement is about. And that is, again to put it nicely, presupposing here that he is sincere and not mocking, and actually thinks he is arguing the point.
