Does God love everyone?

All Scripture Cited Is From The HCSB

The text says the baby is withdrawn at birth?Huh?What are you talking about?It's hard to make sense of your sentences at times.Ps.58:3:"The wicked go astray from the womb;liars err from birth." Conclusion :newborns are sinners at birth as far as Scripture goes -- not human sentiment.

For some reason you neglected my reference to Ps.51:5 :"Indeed,I was guilty when I was born;I was sinful when my mother conceived me."

Verses 5-7 dealt with idols,but verse 8b is certainly about the subject at-hand :"For I knew that you were very treacherous,and were known as a rebel from birth." Conclusion :Newborns are sinners at birth by the testimony of the Bible -- though not by human reckoning.

So you deny original sin -- which is has been a cardinal doctrine of the Church since its inception.You do not believe in the federal headship of Adam -- that his sin has been passed down to every member of the human race.Verse 17 is key:"Since by the one man's trespass,death reigned through that one man..."The other half of the equation is Christ -- the second Adam.In the latter half of that last verse:..."how much more will those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man,Jesus Christ."

Sorry,I meant unfulfilled. Skypair had said that "ALL are born innocent and God has hopes that ALL of us will find Christ...".I responded by asking does God have any unfulfilled desires?That's a legitimate question which you are free to answer as Skypair's surrogate.

Sorry again.I meant Romans 9:18 :"So then,He shows mercy to whom He wills,and He hardens whom He wills." So indeed God hardens those He wishes.

You will not convince me or other Bible believers that everyone is chosen for salvation.How about dealing with the Word of God?

2 Thess.2:13 :"But we must always thank God for you,brothers loved by the Lord,because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth."

2 Tim.1:9 :"who has saved us and called us with a holy calling,not according to our works,but according to His own purpose and grace,which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began."

 

Indeed He does. Jesus said on behalf of God "How many times would I have gathered you to Myself as a hen gathers her chicks, but you would not." Was Jesus lying?

For one, the reason I gave.

Christ gave His life a PROPITIATION for all the sins of all mankind. He ATONED only for those who would believe on Him which we call the "elect" or "church."

skypair

 

Your opinion is that Christ propitiated the sins of everyone head-for-head.But then you draw a curious distinction by saying that He didn't atone for the sins of everyone.Your idea of propitiation falls miserably from the biblical model.The Lord absorbed the anger which was meant for certain sinners and appeased the Father's wrath by taking the full brunt of that wrath upon Himself.If someone's sins have been propitiated --they will not experience the wrath of God (i.e. Hell) -- their sins have been atoned once and for all.Everyone whose sins have been propitiated will go to glory.You reply :"All will not go to Heaven!" Right you are.The Bible teaches that the elct alone will go to be with Christ for eternity.That's because their sins alone have been atoned -- Christ's propitiation was for them alone.Who are these elect -- their names have been registered in the Lamb's Book of Life before the earth was formed.

 

You have it half right, my fine feathered friend! :laugh: But hell is not God's wrath. It is separation from God. It is "stewing in your OWN juices," not in God's juices. :laugh: Remember, rip. God created hell for Satan and his angels to put them away to. He just doesn't want them around anymore.

Did you ever feel like you really hated yourself, rip? That's what eternity will be like for the lost. They will know what God could have done if they had just trusted Him.

As is typical of Calvies, you are lumping propitiation in with atonement. And do you know why you do this when it is not warranted? Because you simply cannot see that saving knowledge in your spirit has to be applied in an active, affirmative way to your soul. Take a peek at my thread on "Atonement." You will see in my latest post the difference. Propitiation was an unblemished lamb sacrifice for the sins of all. But the object of the atonement feast was the goat, the "lost's," sacrifice with reconciliation in view wherein the life (blood) of the goat was united in the mercy seat with God and the sins taken by the scapegoat/"scape-Man," Christ, far away.

One Calvie respondent on another board responded "Yeah, you got something there. Calvies believe that Christ's sacrifice was SUFFICIENT for all but EFFICIENT only for the elect." Do you understand why you believe this, too? It's because you speak of a passive belief in propitiation that really does not save whereas atonement requires an active, lively belief -- one that does something -- one that offers the appropriate, acceptable sacrifice to God, your "goat's" life.

skypair

 

The question should be, why did God hate Esau? He hated Esau at that time because of how little Esau thought of his inheritance. He thought so little of it he sold it all for a bowl of stew. A bowl of stew was more important to Esau than anything his father would leave him. If Esau thought so little of his inheritance how much respect do you think he had for God. (Gen 25
You think God showed undeserved favoritism to Jacob when the choosing between the two of them is the same as the separating of the goats and sheep. When men refuse to place there trust in God and depend on Him He always hates them. That's why they wind up in hell.
The choosing between Jacob and Esau was judgement on Esau and reward for Jacob. Both got what they deserved. However as long as Esau live on earth he still had a chance to learn to depend on God. God hated and Loved Esau just as He loves all sinners enough to die for them.
Esau despised his birthright. Gen 25; 34

God wanted a people unto Him self and I believe he considered all the peoples of the earth and chose the least of all of them. God wanted this people to be His but they had other ideas. They worshipped idols and they could not and would not follow the Law.

If God were so particular that He chose each individual. Then why did He send Salvation to the Gentiles when he already had a chosen people?

I find history interesting but I do not base my spiritual life on the thoughts of men. Nor do I trust in them. I trust in God and He is able to guide my path, as long as I do not rebel as did the Jews.

Men will only be under wrath for not trusting in God and they have that ability. Calvinism rest on inability cause by total depravity. What puzzles me is there is no such thing in scripture. I've had several Calvinist attempt to prove total depravity but they haven't yet.

Jn 3:16 says so and I believe it. Obviously you don't. There isn't anyway around it It says;
For God so loved the world,

It doesn't say. God so loved a particular few.

Yes it does.

I understand that's the way you want it to be but it isn't.
God had to Love the world inorder that some might be saved. The sinner is loved by God right up to his death. This is when the man can no longer be saved it's to late then. All the man has left after death is judgement.
Everyman has a chance to be saved and the knowledge man needs to be saved is manfested with in his heart.
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Then why didn't he show them to us all. Why is it you haven't been able to show them to us. All you've shown us thus far is scriptures taken out of context. You need to understand scripture as a whole not just take them out of context.
Try trusting in God instead of old dead men. CH Spurgeon said many brilliant things but he was also wrong about a lot of what he said. The nice thing about God is He is never wrong.
MB

 

All Scripture From TNIV

No,Romans 9:11 tells us:"Yet,before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad --in order that God's purpose in election might stand." You've got to get that timeline down.God hated Esau before he was born and had done anything good or bad.

No one "deserves" favoritism.Who "deserves"grace?! That's right,no one.But sice the Lord is the Sovereign He has the perfect right to choose for Himself pottery for "noble purposes".(Ro.9:21).The Lord says that "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."(Ro.9:15)

Is that from the MBV? No.God did not love and hate Esau.The Bible tells us He hated him.You've got problems in yielding to the Word of God.

Tell me how someone dead in sin has "that ability".

I don't really believe you are that unaware of Bible basics MB.You're too old to be playing such games.But to please you how about dealing with 1 Cor.2:14 for starters?:"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness,and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."

We'll take a verse at a time.Report back to me the significance this passage has for you.

"Chance"has absolutely nothing to do with someone's salvation.Those who have lived their entire lives without hearing anything of the Gospel of Christ are not "given a chance to be saved."As I have said many times before:The Lord is not an equal-opportunity God.

How about the TNIV rendering?:"Since what may be known about God is plain to them,because God has made it plain to them."

That is not salvific knowledge.That's general revelation.An individual in such a case hasn't heard the Gospel preached.He doesn't know about Christ.He's still without excuse and worthy of condemnation -- but it's not sufficient knowledge to save him.

So I suppose when you quote an isolated verse like John 3:16 I can lay the same charge before you?How much time do you think I have?I certainly believe in the analogy of Scripture.

Quite the smarty pants,aren't you?Your remark is quite humorless and in bad taste to boot.I trust in God.You are forgiven for your rash remark.

Perhaps you need to read more works from men of the past.Many of them opened the Scriptures wonderfully.No one is infallible.But you are missing out when you chose to ignore old works.

 

I think you are running 2 thoughts together, rip.

Rom 9:12 says "It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger." This is all that was said to Rebecca.

Rom 9:13 -- "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." This was NOT told at the time of their births nor to Rebecca. It was told by God in hindsight to Malachi who WROTE it down hundreds of years later.

This just demonstrates how incredibly inept some of the early Reformers were at handling scripture that these verseswere considered to be among the key passages for proving predestination to salvation. As appears to be the case, they didn't exegete the passage --- they forced their own interpretation upon it.

skypair

 

I would have hated him as well if I knew all as God does. He knew ahead of time, Esau would dispies his iheritance. Is that so unusual for God? I don't think so.
Pride was Esau's down fall he thought he was just to good and God hates the proud. He loves the humble.

Nobility!!! there isn't any at BB that I'm aware of we are commoners.
God does have mercy on whom He will. Just because that happens to be the whole world, what's it to us, who He has mercy on? God is God if He wants to save the whole undeserveing world He can whether we like it or not. God sent His own Son to die for the world that they might be saved. The word "might" implies opportunity for the whole world. According to your view there is no opportunity. It's all luck of the draw. It's random chance. If it isn't your fate,,,, tuff!!!

I've got problems!! Have you looked at your self in the mirror lately. You keep trying to convince me of an unprovable position on God having respect for certain people over other people. You haven't shown one scripture that even remotely hint's at your position and you tell me I have problems.

You bet!! Just as soon as you can tell me how someone who is alive to Christ and dead to sin, can still sin.

1st Cor 2:14 is true every word of it. It's yopur interpretation that is unbelievable. You're interpretation would be emensely better if you read all that this sentence pertains to. Mainly;
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
I know you're not trying to tell me that God in all His power cannot reveal Him Self to a sinner

I do not consider the meaning of each verse by it's self. I consider it together with what the rest of the chapter says as a whole. This is what discernment involves, the consideration of scripture as a whole. Un less you consider it as a whole you will never understand it

You believe it does then, with out knowing it. The fact that you have Salvation at all hinges completely on whether or not you have been chosen particularity. You don't even know if you are elect.

The TNIV maybe your whole misunderstanding. Personally I wouldn't waste money on the NIV in any form. Translations are not inspired by God only the original has been confirmed as inspired by God. You can place your trust where you want to but, then it's your soul. If easy reading is your forte instead of accuracy have at it. I rely on the KJV. It's what I was taught out of and it the version that has been proven over time.

By all means read the whole book of John. Study it for the next 50 or so years. You can't study it enough because you'll learn something new out of it every time you read it. John is my favorite writer in the Bible. See if it is really speaking of the whole world. If you find it isn't please be kind enough to let me know where it fails in that area.

I said that because you are always referring to dead men as your proof of text. Dead men do not have anymore ability that you or I have to understand scripture. I rely completely on God for it's interpretation I don't take the word of men over what God's word says. I trust in God for all I have been taught by Him through the Word of God alone. Many have called it a private interpretation and it is. God deal each man a measure of faith none of us are the same. Faith comes from God.

I never said that I haven't read them. Some of my favorites.
J Vernon McGee, John F.Walvoord. James White, Aurthur Pink, A.W.Tozer, Josh Mcdowell, John Knotts, Salem Kirban, D.R Mc Connel,JR Church, Billy Sunday,Barlag Anderson, John Zachary, John Calvin, Bridges, Ankerberg, Weldon, John Mac Authur. Far to many to name them all. I've studdied them what they had to say and checked it all to see if it lined up with scripture. I also studdied how they said it and why they said it.
Did any of them have any effect on me?. Yes. Do I agree 100% with any of them? NO! But I do agree 100% with God's word and it has had an everlasting effect on me. I read it constantly.
Note some of the above named men are Calvinist.
MB

 

All Scripture From TNIV, Except Where Noted

Jacob was an evil schemer.God had the perfect right to hate him.It was God's choice to set his love on Jacob and his holy hatred on Esau.All people are evil.God doesn't choose the best people to be His own.

You object to the TNIV rendering of Ro.9:21 :"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for disposal of refuse?"

The NET Bible,NJB NRSV:for special use
REB : one to be treasured
HCSB : for honor
NIrV : for special purposes
Norlie's: one for distinguished service

The same point is evident in all of these and other translations :God has the sovereign right to do whatever pleases him with His own creation.

God has mercy on some.He does not have mercy on all.Don't go against Holy Writ again.Read and meditate on Ro.9:15,18.

Your reading comprehension is poor.Since I had said that chance has absolutely nothing to do with salvation how could I possibly believe your nonsense of "luck of the draw" or "random chance"?!That's utterly repugnant.

You're using fate as a synonym for chance and luck.Fate is not in the same category.Consult a dictionary sometime.And fate has nothing to do with one's salvation either.

You can say that again!

You deny the biblical doctrine of election.In your view God has either elected no one or everyone.Which is it?In my scriptural view God has chosen a particular people for Himself out of the world long before the world was founded.Election does not mean everyone is chosen -- only some.The Lord chooses to reveal Himself to some and hide saving truths to the rest.Didn't you know that that was the purpose of the parables Jesus spoke?

Ro.8:33 :"Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen?It is God who justifies."
Eph.1:4,5 :For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ,in accordance with his pleasure and will."

You need to take baby bites at this stage of your spiritual growth.Meditate on these passages for now.

(Your spelling needs work.)My interpretation of 1 Cor.2:14 is that those who are not believers do not have the Holy Spirit residing within.These folks do not and cannot accept things that come from the Spirit of God because their minds have not been illuminated by the Holy Spirit.They consider things from the Spirit of God to be foolish.

I could go on.But I'll stop there for now.Do you disagree with my view?If so in what ways?

Yes,you know that.

Back to your favorite subject of 'chance'.I most emphatically do not belive chance has anything at all to do with one's salvation.Can I make it any plainer than that?It's anathema to me.

Yes,it does.No one will receive salvation unless they have been chosen particularly.

Yes I do.Are you saying that you do not know if you are elect?You need to take seriously the following injunctions from the Bible.

2 Peter 1:10:"Therefore,my brothers and sisters,make every effort to confirm your calling and election.For if you do these things you will never stumble."

2 Cor.13:5 :"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith,test yourselves.Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you --unless,of course,you fail the test?"

Are you a King James Only Advocate?Easy reading is not the bottom line --accuracy is.But it is true that many versions have not paid attention to modern sentence structure and grammar.

If you are KJVP more power to you.Just make sure you know the contents of your favorite version.

I have not always been referring to the works of dead men as my proof.You do not read well.What about my Scripture citations?

But I beg to differ with you on another count. Many men of God who have passed away did in fact have much more ability than you and I have in understanding Scripture.But that fact doesn't make me give up.It actually encourages me.

You are going against the Word of God once more MB.Take a gander at 2 Peter 1:20,21 :
"Above all,you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.For prophecy never had its origin in the human will,but prophets,though human,spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

No private interpretations MB.

I am not familiar with some on your list.But I did get a kick out of your mention of John "Knotts".Maybe you were thinking of that great theologian -- Don Knotts? You meant John Knox I'm sure.What works of his do you appreciate?

If you read the works of White and Pink (not the colors!) you will be out ahead of the pack.

Keep reading selectively.

 

You're right Jacob even means trickster. Yet Jacob had an immense respect for his fathers property. Jacob didn't let his ego get the best of him. Most importantly Jacob believed in God. We don't know if Esau did or not

There isn't any thing that God cannot do and do it justly. My question to you is do you consider your self Noble?

Have you ever noticed that all those versions never say the exact same thing?. There is a temptation here that people over look and that is building a whole new doctrine by choosing how much they like the way each different version says something differently than the others. Then they are jumping from one version to another. Talk about confusion!!!.

No argument here God does do what ever He wants. That isn't the argument. The argument is over what He does do.

Wrong God has mercy even on the vessles of wrath because they become vessles of mercy in the same chapter.

It would have to be random or God would be a respecter of men. Peter said;
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

If God doesn't respect who is who. Just how could he be particular in who He chooses? If you say because of foreknowledge that would imply respect of certain ones. So that won't work. Tell you what, you explain how God is particular with out being particular.

Then tell me just how God chooses? It either has to be random or with respect to the individual He chooses. There is no inbetween it's either one or the other.

If so then certainly you should be able to show with scripture just what problems I have. Yet you keep arguing for a lost cause that you haven't been able to prove. You attempt to show you have proven your view but when I read further your proof falls apart.

You're wrong I do not deny biblical doctrine. I deny what you claim is biblical doctrine.
Actually it is the World who are chosen
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The reason Jesus Spoke in parables was to fulfill prophecy and to wait for the proper time for the disciples to explain them to us. Remember they did explain them to us. Most of them are explained to us in scripture.

This speaks of believers as a whole because we are chosen IN HIM.

Sorry I can't return to milk after having strong meat.

I don't deny that if we are converted at all it is entirely the work of God. I don't believe man chooses but instead is chosen. Salvation is of God but it is never forced on a man because of election. (My spelling is bad.) I guess you'll have to live with it.

I completely disagree with your view of election and biblical doctrine. Election is general not particular.

Then if you do not deny that All things are possible with God why does your belief attempt to restrict God as to whom He might save?.

Then do you believe God to be a respecter of certain men? If not don't you find that in conflict with particular election. Please explain?
MB
P.S. More on the way

 

I disagree because of the whosoevers in Jn.3:16

I have made my election sure. I love Jesus More than all else.

No I'm not a KJV only. It's just that the NIV is a dynamic Translation and the KJV is formal or more word for word than thought for thought. I do believe the KJV is much better than the NIV and I do not believe the NIV false claims of accuracy. They have proven themself inaccuratre if anything. I'd place it on the same level as the NWT.
By the way there is a revised version of the KJV in modern english. It's the KJV 2000.

Good advice you should do the same. That "P" by KJV in the quote above should have been an "O" Did you miss typing class? Just teasing you hehe!

It's not the citations them selves but your interpretation of what they actually say that is muddied.

There are no Einstein’s of the Bible. No one knows it all no matter what you may think of them as theological heros. We all have the same potential for wisdom and wisdom comes from God not the heros. God doesn't reveal the same things to all Christians. That's one reason why we disagree. He will reveal the truth to you hang in there.

My friend many not just myself believe as I do. It isn't my priviate interpretation. I do not interpret scripture as some do. I let my God explain it to me. Indeed all biblical knowledge is revealed by God priviately with in my self. I know some claim to hear God speak to them but for me God reveals knowledge with in me. This can happen to anyone as well as you. You're going along after asking for wisdom and all of a sudden it makes sense. It's called a revealing. It's much more accurate than interpretation you should try it.

Comentaries. I found them very helpful in disproving Calvinism.

I don't read from those for doctrinal conformation but to understand why they believe what they believe and to see what biblical proof they offer. Though not all of it is disagreeable with what I believe. I found J Vernon Mc Gee to be the most respectable of all Calvinist writers, and in my view I would have enjoyed a conversation with him. The man was certainly one of the best evanglist I've ever heard on the radio. I'm sure I'll meet him some day.
MB

 

All Scripture From TNIV, Except Where Noted

Romans 9:13 makes it extremely clear:"Esau I hated."The Lord doesn't take the ones He hates to glory with Him.The ones He hates are "the objects of wrath --prepared for destruction."(see Ro.9:23)

So there is no mystery as to the eternal destiny of Esau.

I wasn't chosen for any merit.Review:That's why it's called grace.Al true believers Calvinists or not are those for "special use",ones to be treasured","for his special purposes" etc.

As a believer I have nobility because 2 Peter 2:9 says:"But you are a chosen people,a royal priesthood,a holy nation,God's special possession,that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."

Yes,that's why they're called "versions".

Why don't you start a thread about this in the appropriate forum?I don't want to derail this thread.

Since you have no argument over the biblical fact that the Lord does everything He wants -- then there is no argument.

God does not have mercy on the vessels of wrath (verse 23 of Ro.9).He does have great patience with them the text says.But the vessels of wrath and the objects of mercy are two distinct categories of people.It does not say that the vessels of wrath become the objects of mercy later in the chapter.You are reading into things which are not present.

He has mercy on some and does not have mercy on others as Ro.9:15 and 18 clearly state.You do not like that.You have a problem in yielding to the authority of the Word of God.

God is not influenced by people like humans are.We are swayed by the looks (good or bad),intellect (great or weak) etc.Since God created all people and specifically endowed them with whatever they have -- He can't possibly be a respector of persons in that regard.

But over in over in Scripture it says that He chooses some and does not choose others. Election means choosing. God does the choosing. He does not choose all --but those according to the pleasure of His will.

How does God choose?The Bible doesn't say.We just know He does what pleases Him --to the praise of His glorious grace.Have you ever read Deut.29:29?

Your options are false and finite.

No,the world is not chosen.By the word "world" you mean every person who has,is, and shall exist.That's utterly wrong.He chose some.They are certain ones.He chose them before the world was created.Their names and only their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

John 3:16 is restrictive.He saves only believers.He loves them.

I agree.I had quoted Ro.8:33 and Eph.1:4,5.Yes,all believers were chosen in Him.

Then you'll have to live under the knowledge that you are at odds with the Word of God on that score.

"Whom He might save"? There is nothing indefinite about His salvation and who He saves.I base my belief on the Word of God.The Bible tells me that He has elected a remnant.All people from all times does not a remnant or small flock make.

 

Whosoevers=Those who believe.Who believes?The ones God has elected.

Really?You had asked how people could be sure they are elect or not.It seems as if you had never encountered 2 Peter 1:10 and 2 Cor. 13:5 before.

Again the above "thoughts" should be placed in a different forum.But you would be in a lot of trouble to charge that the NIV and NWT are in the same category.It shows your lack of reverence for the Word of God.It shows you haven't read the NIV.It demonstrates that you type things which you don't know anything about.It evidences a lot about your character.

There have been dozens of revisions of the KJV.You most likely have a Benjamin Blayney edition.

KJVP means King James Version Preferred.Since you claim that you aren't KJVO and yet are pretty strident about it, you would be KJVP.

I had said that I had given you quite a number of Bible citations -- but you came along and said that I quote only dead men.I was just pointing out your dishonesty.

"We all have the same potential for wisdom"?Where does Scripture say that?

Certainly "no one knows it all".That's just a trusim.If you have any other flashes of insight please let me know.

So you still want to deny 2 Peter 1:20,21?!

I had asked you which work of Knox's have you appreciated the most.And you reply:"Commentaries".John Knox didn't write any commentaries.Perhaps you haven't really read any material by the pen of Mr.Knox.

I just have to smile at some of the stuff you decide to type.You found that his 'commentaries' are "very helpful in disproving Calvinism".Please, you are so careless.You do realize that John Knox was an ardent Calvinist,don't you?I guess not.

Here is what Knox said about Geneva:"is the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the Apostles."Geneva was where Knox studied and preached for several years.He looked up to John Calvin and learned (as is apparent from the quote) a lot from him.

In 1559 John Knox wrote his longest work :"On Predestination".It was a polemic against an Anabaptist.Here's a quote:"God willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"speaketh not of every man,and of every particular person,but of all men in general,that is to say,of men of all estates,all conditions,all realms,and all ages.

By no stretch of the imagination was JVM a Calvinist!That proves how little you know theology or how little you really pay attention.He was a Presbyterian in name only --and went against his vows.

No doubt he was a nice man --but a poor exegete.I heard his ramblings for years.He didn't care for Matthew Henry.JVM said his Commentary was as dry as dust,or words to that effect.

You need to impress me with your command of something factual for a change.It's getting rather tedious to counter all your very obvious "mistakes".

 

"Dishonesty" is that word meant as an insult? It's always the same with people who can't prove there positions. When it comes down to proof all they can do is insult your integrity because, that haven't the scripture to prove there own doctrines.
Conversation is over I no longer wish to discuss theology with someone who does this sort of thing.
MB

 

I had said that I had given you quite a number of Scriptural citations -- but you came along and said that I only quote dead men.

You said in post #165"Try trusting in God instead of old dead men."

The above was a rebuke to me because of a passing reference to Charles Spurgeon.

When I said that I was pointing out your dishonesty -- it was not meant as an insult -- I was using a descriptive term.

How dare you say that I merely trust "in old dead men" -- while you -- the self-aggrandizing one trust in God.I could have said a lot more than the fact that you were dishonest.

______________________________________________________
A different subject follows.

You have said a lot of things which are patently wrong.I'll itemize just a few of your gems and let them stand without comment (except for brackets to clarify).

One thing I know of Esau is that God must have loved him.

God loved and hated Esau.

Everyone has been chosen for salvation.

Everyman has a chance to be saved.

God has mercy on the vessels of wrath [Ro.9:22] because they became vessels of mercy in the same chapter.

Election is general,not particular.

I'd place it [NIV]on the same level as the NWT.

[When I quoted the TNIV] :You can place your trust where you want to,but then it's your soul.

I found J Vernon McGee to be the most respectable of all Calvinist writers.

I found them [John Knox's commentaries] helpful in disproving Calvinism.

___________________________________________________________

[The next couple of items are paraphrased.Rip]

I believe in private interpretation.

One doesn't know if one is elect.

God has mercy on the whole world.

We don't know if Esau believed in God or not.

 

Spurgeon, on what some Calvinists do when Scripture doesn't fit their "grand theory" [I Tim. 2:4 "Who will have all men to be saved"]:

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.""

 

BTW, rather than let this pass:

I’ll take that as a “yes”.

1) Hyper-Calvinist announce they were “specially” picked before the foundation and others weren’t. The Determinist, sadly claiming to have to be forced to have faith, show contempt for others as they declare God’s creatures have no choice to respond or not, while proudly broadcasting they are the singled out pre-chosen elect.
2) Define arrogant.

ar’ro’gant (adjective)

Proudly contemptuous
feeling or showing self-importance and contempt or disregard for others

 

God loves us. And that we may
Commit sin. But as long as we
Accept Him as Savior & Lord.
Repent of your sins.
We all make mistakes. Just
Act humble. And admit your mistakes.

 

So, reading a few the Scriptures quoted in this thread, the Scripture plainly says that God loves the world and wants all men to be saved.

In His creation, God stepped out of eternity (as "In the beggining" implies) into the time continuum and met us here where we are (Earth).
I believe He had to make some adjustments to His Persona and behavior to do that.

After all, when He (All-knowing) came looking for Adam (Where art thou?) He asked Him questions (Who told thee that thou wast naked?), etc. He certainly gives the appearance of not knowing these things.

I suppose we could say that the questions were for our benefit.

Personally it doesn't bother me. I know He is, was and ever will be omni-everything, yet sometimes He doesn't behave that way.

OK, I love Him and don't try to solve the enigma because I know He is not capable of sin or deception and always has my best interest in mind.

He meets me where I am in the time continuum though He is an Eternal Being. One day I will be there with Him in when we go back together into the eternal state.

Why did I say all that?

God loves every man and wants every man to be saved. When they refuse His Son that love turns anger and eventually wrath.

Someone keeps quoting John 3:16 as a proof text that God loves all (and indeed He does).

But here in this river of time the love of John 3:16 can turn to hate and wrath.

This from the same chapter in John.

35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

Revelation 16 clearly reveals the wrath of almighty God.

This same John who wrote that "God is love" shows us the other very important characteristics of our God.

God is holy.
God is just.

Here in the stream of time though He is longsuffering, His love can turn to hate.

Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.​

HankD

 

Here is a perfect example how non-Calvinists distort the Calvinist position.

No one is forced to have faith. No one is dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God. No one confesses Christ as Lord who does not want to confess Christ as Lord.

I know no Calvinist who is proud of his election and his salvation. He is humbled by the knowledge that God sought him out, opened his spiritual eyes, gave him a new heart, convicted him of sin and drew him to repentance and faith--when God was under no obligation to do so. All believers are the objects of God's grace, and and have nothing to be proud of.

If I believed Calvinism is as you characterize it, I'd reject it, too.