Featured Romans 9 doesn't prove Calvinism; it proves the oppositie

I called you humanist because you exemplify humanistic thought and philosophy. I have THOROUGHLY refuted your comments. Not Willing That Any Should Perish? You just don't like the truth of context and how that works. Or you can't grasp it, I don't know which. You are not wrong because you disagree with me, you are wrong because you are wrong. And no, I'm not a fatalist and I don't think you understand what true fatalism is and what true Calvinism is. They are not the same thing.

 

If God is Sovereign and all the verses expressing God's sovereign choice is true (by the way I posted a 6 page list and I will add it here for you) then salvation is set in stone.
Fatalism is an atheist concept of an unthinking, uncaring natural law that cannot be changed. Do you think our Sovereign King is unthinking and uncaring when, under no obligation, He willfully chose to save some wretched sinners, but not all?

 

so would you mind setting up the context and why you believe your view of that is true?

 

This is the lament of Jerusalem and a rebuke of the leaders of Jerusalem who have not taken care of their children.

 

Many times we do, and it gets exhausting exegeting the exact same passages over and over again for people who refuse to listen.

 

Agreed. I would guess I have exegeted 2 Peter 3 a handful of times here at the BB. The context of Peter's discussion about false teachers and God's judgment in the Day of the Lord just gets ignored by people who couldn't care less about Peter's argument and just want the sentence in verse 9 to mean what they want it to mean.
It is so tiring to keep correcting something that wouldn't need correction if people would only read the entire letter of 2 Peter as a whole.

 

People are lazy doctrinally and want to believe whatever is told them and "feels good" which is humanistic in philosophy. Unfortunately God's ways are not our ways and the sooner they recognize that the better. It doesn't matter what our view of fair or just is, what matters is what God says on the matter.

 

But you are engaged in this thread. If you are tired of doing that why take part?

 

Maybe I assume the other side will quit being so stinking lazy.

 

No doubt, but I think we can all be lazy at times. However, if we assert something as truth then we should be willing to give a detailed explanation why. Shouldn't we?

 

I am, and, as you know, when you asked for elaboration, I gave it. See how that works?

 

Brother I think the world of you but your answer was weak and incomplete.

 

That's fair. The passage quoted literally has nothing to do with the topic. It was a continuation of Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders.

 

Calvinists say God can only be sovereign if He controls all things but then deny He controls all things. That seems like you have a deficient view of God.

 

What most calvinist claim is calvinism and what you try to show calvinism is seem to be two different things. Example you claim that all could come to Christ Jesus but they just do not want to. But your theology shows that is untrue. look at your tulip, it excludes all those that are not "selected" as per the calvinist view of salvation.

 

And you ignore any scripture that does not fit into your calvinist view.

 

It boggles my mind how the determinist proponents actually promote the idea that God should for His own glory consign consign vast numbers of humanity to an eternity in hell for no other reason then He can. God, by that sick thinking, would have to be an evil God if He could have saved all, as was His stated desire, but instead just wanted to glorify Himself more.

Such is the reality of calvinism.

 

Name one,

 

Could as in have the option. I said nothing of ability.