Elected to be lost

A Reminder

All those who hold to double predestination are not hyper-Calvinists . You would be eliminating an awful lot of true Calvinists if that were the case .

 

I think the key is that Romans 9 says almost the same thing. It doesn't say exactly what I hear the Reformed folks sort of beating around the bush about. They seem to want to have it both ways - that we are responsible for doing wrong, but have no capability to do right. You can't have one without the other.

Les

 

And I stand corrected. Thank you sir. I lean toward supralapsarianism.... its just that I can't really say i'm either. I think that through the providence of God, we will always choose in a manner that is consistent with God's decreed will. Is that leaning towards supra? I don't think we can choose in a manner that will be inconsistent with God's decreed will.

 

It may be that I have a wrong view, that's what I'm trying to sort out. So far it is not making sense to me. God's providence is certainly interesting and mysterious, but I don't think that is what we talking about here.

It seems you want to make man helpless and yet responsible at the same time and that is what doesn't make sense to me and where I see Reformed theology breaking down.

Les

 

I'll assure you that I don't make man anything. I've given Scripture to back what I believe. Refute that Scripture if you want to. It matters not what I believe. What matters is what Scripture says.

 

Amen. Soli Deo Gloria.

 

That passage in Romans 9 addresses exactly the fact that you can have one without the other. It says, "Why does He still blame us, for who resists His will?" The question clearly states the problem from the perspective of the person who cannot do right, yet is still being held responsible for the fact that he does wrong.

Then you get your answer, which you still don't seem to accept.