Does Calvinism ever really answer the major objection?

[webdog]

I'm the highest paid

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Off subjection for a moment though (if I might) Directed at Old Regular. Would you consider a church plant in NW New Jersey. Ive spoken to PB's but all they're interested in is planting in Manhattan (60 Miles East & the center of Yankee "Godless" Culture)! YUK!!!

We are a void area....even to Baptists & could use a good Salvation Theology Based Baptist Church out here in the wasteland. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm the highest paid

ROFL.....yeaaaaaa, I would believe that! :laugh:

 

[Aaron]

I'm pointing you to the root meaning of the origin of this word. We understand one who is able to respond is 'response-able,' thus when you remove the ability for one to respond you remove their responsibility or culpability. It is not that difficult.

Is God unjust to hold the generation at the time of Christ responsible for the murder of Abel, though they had no ability to do so?

Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. Mat. 23:34-35 NLT
​

See who Christ accuses of a murder that occurred nealy a millenium prior to their birth, an act they had no ability to perform. So, you see, you're concept of justice is narrow, shallow, carnal and not at all biblical.

You accusation of non-sequitur is based on the fallacy of a false dichotomy, as if the judgement of God must be based on one or the other when in reality it is both...

Adam's sin is your sin, though it was committed thousands of years ago. You are not a free moral agent.

But you haven't addressed anything. God accepted Jacob and rejected Esau. Esau because he was corrupt from conception and not a chosen vessel of mercy, and Jacob, though corrupt from conception, because he was a chosen vessel of mercy.

Again, from every angle, you cross swords with Paul.

 

[quantumfaith]

The BB will gladly refund you your membership fee

reading this thread all I see from the cal camp is "you this" and "you don't that" instead of "I believe" and "our view".

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Is God unjust to hold the generation at the time of Christ responsible for the murder of Abel, though they had no ability to do so?

Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. Mat. 23:34-35 NLT​

"You" refers to the Israelites as a whole, not individuals.

You know, just like when he says in the next verse: "37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

Plus, no one is denying the federal headship view that establishes the concept of original sin, which involves the representative on a national scope but still involves individual responsibility. Paul spells this out when he writes, "...in this way death came to all men, because all sinned..." Death came to ALL through the sin of Adam, but that is because "ALL SINNED." In the same way, these Israelites didn't personally kill Able but they were likewise guilty of the same sins they claimed they would never have done. Jesus was showing them how they were just as guilty of doing the exact same things they said they would never do.

Adam's sin is your sin, though it was committed thousands of years ago.

Paul said, "because all sinned," not "because Adam sinned." But really it is not either/or, it is both/and.

You are not a free moral agent.

Then God is making me tell you that you are incorrect. :smilewinkgrin:

But you haven't addressed anything.

Don't you mean to say that God hasn't addressed anything through me? Remember, I'm not a free moral agent. I'm just doing what I was made to do by God, so take it up with Him. :thumbs:​

 

[OldRegular]

To claim the creature only has the liberty of freedom of the will through secondary cause does not “establish” the free ability of the creature to consciously choose, on the contrary it establishes a pre-determinate (first) cause which restricts the creatures ability to freely and of his own will to consciously choose.

Am I missing something? Does the decree really state that free will is only through secondary causes?

Of God's Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

 

[Benjamin]

I'm only going to address this one point because the totality of your post flows from a wrong understanding of this point.

Here, again, is Westminster:

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
​

The first clause is not talking about "determinism," as you presuppose. The first cause is addressing what we refer to as Sovereignty.

To say that God is sovereign means that He does as He pleases. Where you err is that you presuppose that this means that He is controlling persons like pawns, bishops, knights, etc. on a chess board. But, we, and the Westminster Divines, did not believe this.

If you look at the second clause, you will see the use of the adversative conjunction "yet." This means that the second clause and the first clause do not exist in separate vacuums. Rather, due to the use of the adversative "yet" it is understood that God ordains all things or God is sovereign over all things but that sovereignty does not make Him the author of sin.

If you further not the third and fourth clauses, they begin with the coordinating conjunction "nor." The "nor" looks back to the "yet" and continues the exceptions, extending the exceptions to to say that God does not over-rule the will of the creature nor does He remove liberty.

Now, it is obvious that you disagree with Westminster. That's fine. But, it is really absurd to try to redefine what is so clearly written based on your presuppositions. In other words, you need to let Westminster speak for itself. Once you have done that, you are--obviously--free to confront the ideas contained therein. For example, you can say "The authors of Westminster say that God ordains everything that comes to pass and they say that God isn't the author of sin. How can those two ideas be the case?" In asking questions like this you argue the merits of the confession itself rather than setting up a strawman and holding the arguments of others to your strawman born of your own flawed presupposition drawn from an unfair reading of Westminster.

Also, it is important to remember that the Confessions themselves are just that--confessions. Often they do not give reasons. You are looking for reasons, and that's fine. Don't look for reasons by redefining the confession. Take the confession at face value and then ask your questions.

The Archangel

Have to disagree, I see the “confession” as an argument starting with a premise, making claims and attempting to support those claims with reasoning. I simply addressed its argument as I saw it.

I see the Calvinist’ (which you refer to as “we”) view of sovereignty as a direct form of determinism and regarding that I gave credit to the confession for not only proclaiming that God is not the author of sin but also for the recognition that violence can not be made toward the volition of men, but not in disregard to Calvinist sovereignty equaling determinism.

On another note, the words “yet’ and “nor” are supportive words and what they are supporting is an argument. Further, I do not see the “confession” as Divine nor do I have the kind of respect for it that I would refer to it that way or have reason to refrain from objecting to its premises. Countless times I have observed Calvinists use the confession to proclaim a view of determinism but if you don’t see it that way that is fine. I recognize that you hold to a compatibilist view and think you are correct in assuming the confession resembles that view, at least at times. I respect the compatibilist view much more than the Hard/Hyper-Determinist view because of the attempt to avoid theological fatalism, but still I find it in error and I do not recognize the reasoning behind compatibility as being logically sound.

 

[Skandelon]

The first clause is not talking about "determinism," as you presuppose.

AA, where do you think 'Compatibilism' got its name? It is from the idea that they believe Determinism is "compatible" with human freedom. By denying the determinism of your system you have nothing with which to be compatible. Hard determinists, which I know you are not, are not compatibilists because they simply deny free will. But what is free will compatible with in your system if not the determinism you seek to deny?

The first cause is addressing what we refer to as Sovereignty.

Here is the problem with that. We BOTH affirm sovereignty. Our debate is regarding how one defines such: like a free will libertarian or a compatibilistic determinist. You, whether you acknowledge it or not, side with the determinists on the first point of the case. To deny that is to deny the need for compatibility.

To say that God is sovereign means that He does as He pleases.

Again, this is insufficient because what if it pleased God to create a world more like the one defined by the libertarian rather than the determinist?

For example, you can say "The authors of Westminster say that God ordains everything that comes to pass and they say that God isn't the author of sin. How can those two ideas be the case?"

But I already know how you answer this. You affirm free will by defining it as "doing what one desires," and I've already presented a well reasoned case for why that is an insufficient ground for freedom given the divine determinism of man's inborn nature/desires.

BTW, do you consider instinctive choices of animals to be free as well, since they too are 'doing what they desire?'

In a deterministic framework you still must answer the question: "Why does one have that desire?" And the answer ends up being 'because God so ordained it to be.' Do you deny this?

 

[Benjamin]

Am I missing something? Does the decree really state that free will is only through secondary causes?

Of God's Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Yeah, it could be that you are missing something. Second causes are mutually exclusive to liberty in the will of the creature and they do not establish or justify the first clause.

 

[Aaron]

In the same way, these Israelites didn't personally kill Able but they were likewise guilty of the same sins they claimed they would never have done. Jesus was showing them how they were just as guilty of doing the exact same things they said they would never do.

No, they are not responsible for the same kinds of things, they are responsible for the murders of all the godly of all time, because in their hearts, despite their lip service, they hated the godly, and as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

So, men are judged according to what they are, not their abilities.

But back to the topic, God's hardening is not based on the actions of those who are hardened, as you erroneously and stubbornly assert. Paul said it very clearly. It is based on His purposes according to election--that and that alone. His choices concerning Jacob and Esau prove it. One was hated and one was loved before any had done any good or evil.

God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and He will harden whom He wills, because He is God. He doesn't have to answer to you. Who are you, O man? Even if your vision were as clear as Adam's before the Fall, you're still to small to comprehend the justice of God, and you will not be His judge.

You may not like this answer, but that's the answer the Spirit gives you until you're humble enough to receive it.

 

[OldRegular]

Yeah, it could be that you are missing something. Second causes are mutually exclusive to liberty in the will of the creature and they do not establish or justify the first clause.

I think not!

 

[Skandelon]

No, they are not responsible for the same kinds of things, they are responsible for the murders of all the godly of all time, because in their hearts, despite their lip service, they hated the godly, and as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

Look at the context Aaron.

29 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! 33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

I don't know how that can be any more clear. Notice the word "SO" there? Look what comes before it. "I'm sending you prophets (just like He did for their forefathers)...you will kill and crucify; others you will flog..." And SO...because of this God will judge them for the very things they said they would never do.

So, men are judged according to what they are, not their abilities.

As Forrest's mother always said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

NOTE: This was edited out, but this was NOT a comment addressed about Aaron. This is a comment about the nature of man. Aaron's argument was set up as if man is judged for who they are rather than what they do, but I was attempting to show people DO what they ARE. I did that by using this famous quote. I WAS NOT calling Aaron stupid and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Aaron is obviously a very intelligent person and I would have no reason to stoop to that kind of insult. It wouldn't make any sense if this quote was about Aaron and only someone not following the full discussion would have come to that conclusion.

I guess if she were a Determinist she might have said, "Determined agents do as determined."

But back to the topic, God's hardening is not based on the actions of those who are hardened, as you erroneously and stubbornly assert.

Yet, you are so open minded and ready to receive other's views. :applause:

I didn't say that God's hardening was "based on their actions." I argued that those judicially hardened were ALREADY stubborn and hard hearted. God patiently 'held out his hands to them' (10:21) but they rebelled. God simply sealed them, or blinded them in their already rebellious condition so as to accomplish a greater redemptive purpose....that was the basis for his hardening them.

Paul said it very clearly. It is based on His purposes according to election

Exactly. God elected for Israel to be the nation that brought redemption to the world. He did this by:

1. Bringing Christ through the lineage of the Jews.

2. Reserving a select few from Israel to be the messengers to take the appeal of reconciliation to the whole world...every creature. Paul, for example, though just as self-hardened and stubborn as the rest of Israel, was hand picked for the 'noble purpose' of being an apostle. Not because he deserved it or had done anything to make himself desirable, but simply to fulfill the God's purpose of electing Israel in the first place.

3. Hardening the rest of Israel so as to make room for the ingrafting of the Gentiles and to ensure the crucifixion of Christ through their disobedient rebellion.

--that and that alone. His choices concerning Jacob and Esau prove it. One was hated and one was loved before any had done any good or evil.

Meaning one was chosen for noble purposes and one was not, just as we are called to choose God over our parents, wife and children by "hating" them. Jacob was chosen to be the father of the Christ...Esau was not.

God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and He will harden whom He wills, because He is God.

Amen! He had mercy on Paul but hardened the Pharisee standing next to him, but does that mean the hardened one is unloved and will certainly go to hell? Has he stumbled beyond recovery because God chose to hardened him and save Paul?

NOOOOOOOOOO! Listen to what Paul says about that fellow countryman who was hardened:

"Did they (Jews who are hardened) stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

You may not like this answer, but that's the answer the Spirit gives you until you're humble enough to receive it.

Ironic you say that when scripture teaches: "Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up," when apparently it should have said, "God will humble you before Himself so as to lift you up."

 

[The Archangel]

That you are still trying to tell me what I believe, rather than listening to what I believe, has already passed the threshold of ridiculousness.

AA, where do you think 'Compatibilism' got its name? It is from the idea that they believe Determinism is "compatible" with human freedom. By denying the determinism of your system you have nothing with which to be compatible. Hard determinists, which I know you are not, are not compatibilists because they simply deny free will. But what is free will compatible with in your system if not the determinism you seek to deny?

I, frankly, don't care where compatibilism got it name. I, frankly, don't care for your errant definition of compatibilism. What I do care for is the biblical picture of compatibilism we see, for example, in Genesis 50:20--what the brothers intended for evil God intended for good. Clearly, God fore-ordains the free and sinful actions of human beings to serve His purposes and display His glory.

You are bringing your definition of compatibilism into this discussion--a definition I reject. You are relying on the philosophical understanding of compatibilism, not the biblical example. Now, before you go and accuse me of being condescending or anything like that, I am merely stating a fact and not accusing you of anything.

Here is the problem with that. We BOTH affirm sovereignty. Our debate is regarding how one defines such: like a free will libertarian or a compatibilistic determinist. You, whether you acknowledge it or not, side with the determinists on the first point of the case. To deny that is to deny the need for compatibility.

No. Again, with the telling me what I believe! If I was doing this to you you'd be going ape and deleting sentences from my posts.

The debate is not over sovereignty. The debate is, in fact, over your definition of terms.

Again, this is insufficient because what if it pleased God to create a world more like the one defined by the libertarian rather than the determinist?

Fallacy: petitio principii

But I already know how you answer this. You affirm free will by defining it as "doing what one desires," and I've already presented a well reasoned case for why that is an insufficient ground for freedom given the divine determinism of man's inborn nature/desires.

No. What you've presented is a so-called well-reasoned case based on a faulty presupposition and understanding of what we believe. You've further gone on to presume to tell us what we believe.

Your "case" is completely and totally unpersuasive because it starts from the wrong place.

Here's an example (and I might use this more than this time):

Whether one likes Newt Gingrich or not there is a common Democratic attack on him. The Democrats claim "Newt Gingrich is a hypocrite because he was having an affair at the same time he was involved in the impeachment of Bill Clinton for having an affair."

This is a common attack; it bears no resemblance to actual fact. In fact, Bill Clinton was not impeached over extra-marital sex. In fact, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, he was impeached for perjury.

So, when the Democrats try to demonize Newt by using this sad episode in our Nation's history, they have no credibility and, by definition, cannot make a well-reasoned case. Why? Because they deny the genesis of the impeachment.

In your arguments and debates you are doing the exact same thing. You are trying to ram your idea of what we believe down our throats. You are defining what we believe as 2+2=5 when we define it as 2+2=4. When we deny your definition, rather than taking what we say at face value, you seek to "correct" us by having us accept your big-brotheresque 2+2=5.

BTW, do you consider instinctive choices of animals to be free as well, since they too are 'doing what they desire?'

I haven't given this much thought. Animals are not image bearers and so it is a moot point.

In a deterministic framework you still must answer the question: "Why does one have that desire?" And the answer ends up being 'because God so ordained it to be.' Do you deny this?

You are also assuming that I am a Supralapsarian. I am not. I am an Infralapsarian.

God permits the fall--with its consequences. Adam and Eve were told there would be consequences to their disobedience. God actively determined what the consequences would be. Adam and Eve freely chose to embrace the consequences.

Adam is the one who brought the fallen state on his progeny. He chose poorly. What you are arguing for is this: God views man as neutral and He instills a fallen nature into him as a result of the fall. That is not the case. As a natural effect (consequence) of Adam's rebellion, his nature became fallen and he passed that fallen nature on to all of us.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Archangel,

1. I have extensively studied Compatiblism for close to two decades and was a proponent of it for much of that time. Compatibilism, by its very definition, IS a philosophical view, whether you want to call it that or not. Now, you may have a different method of defining and defending it, and that is fine, but accusing me of not understanding, misrepresenting, being ridiculous, and such demeaning and unnecessary terminology only reflects poorly on you, so please work with me.

2. You still haven't told me (as far as I can see) if you believe that Adam had a libertarian free will prior to the Fall. That will help me better understand your perspective. It seems like I remember you claiming LFW was an illogical and thus impossible system of thought, but I admittedly don't remember if that was you or someone else.

3. The ONLY defining of compatibilism I have done is to say that you believe that the will is free if one is acting according to his desire. You affirmed that. In contrast, I've presented you a definition of contra-causaul freedom and have shown why I believe your definition is inadequate to establish a basis for any real since of 'freedom.' You haven't responded to the merits of those arguments, but instead have resorted to the old "you just don't understand my view" argument.

4. Petitio principii: Correct, my response was to point out your fallacy by presuming my premise, just as you did first. I'm glad you caught that, but I fear you failed to see that you did it first and that I was only attempting to show you that.

5. In your Newt example, which I liked, BTW. What specifically have I said that you would equate to the fallacy of the democrats incorrect assertion? I've already explained to you that my use of the word 'control' was only meant to reflect the casually deterministic (through secondary means etc) 'sovereignty' of the compatibilistic system even though I didn't go to all the trouble to define it to your standards.

6. I brought up animal instinct to draw out the problem of your definition regarding one being free by doing what they want. An animal instinctively does what it wants based upon inborn natural reflexes in response to specific outward stimulus. It appears the concept of man's nature determining his choice in the compatibilistic system works in a similar manner. But, one would hardly call an instinctive reflex "free" simply because it was according to the agents desire.

What you are arguing for is this: God views man as neutral and He instills a fallen nature into him as a result of the fall. That is not the case. As a natural effect (consequence) of Adam's rebellion, his nature became fallen and he passed that fallen nature on to all of us.

But what is man's nature before the fall? This still needs to be answered.

And what do you mean by "God permits the fall." I agree with this statement, of course, but people mean different things when they say this and I am trying to understand what you mean by it. Does God merely foreknow and allow the fall, or is there more to it?

 

[Aaron]

Look at the context Aaron.

Charles, Charles, Charles.

29 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! 33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

I don't know how that can be any more clear.

Me either.

 

[Iconoclast]

Is God unjust to hold the generation at the time of Christ responsible for the murder of Abel, though they had no ability to do so?

Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. Mat. 23:34-35 NLT
​

See who Christ accuses of a murder that occurred nealy a millenium prior to their birth, an act they had no ability to perform. So, you see, you're concept of justice is narrow, shallow, carnal and not at all biblical.

Adam's sin is your sin, though it was committed thousands of years ago. You are not a free moral agent.

But you haven't addressed anything. God accepted Jacob and rejected Esau. Esau because he was corrupt from conception and not a chosen vessel of mercy, and Jacob, though corrupt from conception, because he was a chosen vessel of mercy.

Again, from every angle, you cross swords with Paul.

Aaron...thanks for another good post.....you have correctly identified the on going problems with these teachings.
If any consider your post they can see it clearly...if God allows them to.

ps. ylt says...
35that on you may come all the righteous blood being poured out on the earth from the blood of Abel the righteous, unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar:


AA......thanks again for doing the heavy lifting in this post.

 

[agedman]

Is God unjust to hold the generation at the time of Christ responsible for the murder of Abel, though they had no ability to do so?

Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. Mat. 23:34-35 NLT
​

See who Christ accuses of a murder that occurred nealy a millenium prior to their birth, an act they had no ability to perform. So, you see, you're concept of justice is narrow, shallow, carnal and not at all biblical.

Adam's sin is your sin, though it was committed thousands of years ago. You are not a free moral agent.

But you haven't addressed anything. God accepted Jacob and rejected Esau. Esau because he was corrupt from conception and not a chosen vessel of mercy, and Jacob, though corrupt from conception, because he was a chosen vessel of mercy.

Again, from every angle, you cross swords with Paul.

Aaron,

Thank you for that very good post.

Well stated.

 

[marke]

My primary objection to calvinism is that it portrays God as One who has pleasure in the death of the wicked; One who created an environment for the entrance of sin into the world for no reason other than His good pleasure (sin having no bearing whatsoever, they suggest, on whether God decides to save someone or not); and One who chooses to bring wicked sinners into the world who will never have any hope other than to be burnt in everlasting fire for having been born in sin. I know Calvinists temper this portrayal of God with "Who are we to question why God makes Himself look inconsistently evil in destroying the billions of humans who had no part in their being made sinners and who will have no hope of ever pleading their case for mercy and deliverance from that burning fiery judgment of God's wrath against them for their sin.

 

[preacher4truth]

Charles, Charles, Charles.



Me either.

Good posts Aaron.

I am simply amazed that one is so offended at others here, yet the terms immature, with attacks and demeaning comments on ones character are brought in by the offended, and to top it off comes calling one stupid by implication of course, showing the capacity and actions of said accuser.

Isn't it wonderful? I believe all of this came about due to one calling a thread "silly." In fact, I know it is.

Yet, take a look at all of this taking place since.

The inability to see ones error theologically is coupled with these things as well, and neither are seen by the said.

Now I understand more fully.

Anyhow,, I especially agree with this post here:

Is God unjust to hold the generation at the time of Christ responsible for the murder of Abel, though they had no ability to do so?

Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. Mat. 23:34-35 NLT
​

See who Christ accuses of a murder that occurred nealy a millenium prior to their birth, an act they had no ability to perform. So, you see, you're concept of justice is narrow, shallow, carnal and not at all biblical.

Adam's sin is your sin, though it was committed thousands of years ago. You are not a free moral agent.

But you haven't addressed anything. God accepted Jacob and rejected Esau. Esau because he was corrupt from conception and not a chosen vessel of mercy, and Jacob, though corrupt from conception, because he was a chosen vessel of mercy.

Again, from every angle, you cross swords with Paul.

This lays bare his errors.

The underlyying complaint and basis of their theology remains: This is simply "not fair" and because THEY say so, it is rejected, even though it is Biblical truth.