I thought I was saved, but....

[Iconoclast]

John 1:13 and Romans 9:16 show that human decision is not the clincher in salvation yet there is an abundance of preaching today that says salvation is based upon human decision. This is a lie that has assured many that show no genuine conversion and said base all of their salvation on a prayer and decision they've made. Many of these never darken the door of a church, nor do they desire the things of God.

I will believe the Scripture and it denies such a fallacy of human decision based salvation.

When a person desires the things of God, desires the Word, preaching, prayer, feel and know God moving upon them to be holy and to trust upon Him, these are those who have for the most part been genuinely converted. There is also the doubting and examining of self that comes along with this with the fear and trembling of working out ones salvation.

All the arguing, reasoning and illustrations in the world to make salvation the same as crossing a bridge and what not fall well short of truth. Faith is not an inherent decision but is the supernatural act of God and gift of God. Eph. 1:19.

BTW, many people who are truly saved doubt their salvation and do so on all sides of the camp. Rely upon Christ and Him alone and leave feelings and doubts which are a lack of faith aside, trust fully in the salvation to be brought unto you by His grace as per 1 Peter 1:13.

Very solid post:thumbs::wavey::thumbs:

 

[Luke2427]

Well Luke, we will have to agree to disagree. I believe the scriptures show that believing is a choice a person can make.

Pro 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

God himself said fools, simple ones, and scorners did not "choose" to fear him.

If man cannot choose to believe or not, then how can he be accountable for unbelief?

You CHOOSE the fear of the Lord based on whether or not you are persuaded that he ought to be feared.

You are conflating choice with faith.

You literally want to REPLACE biblical faith with choice. You literally SAY that faith IS choice.

That is a very serious error.

Faith is FAITH. Choice is choice.

You don't get to say faith is choice any more than you get to say faith is peanut butter.

We choose what we choose based on what we believe. But we believe what we believe based on what we have been persuaded is so.

 

[Winman]

You CHOOSE the fear of the Lord based on whether or not you are persuaded that he ought to be feared.

You are conflating choice with faith.

You literally want to REPLACE biblical faith with choice. You literally SAY that faith IS choice.

That is a very serious error.

Faith is FAITH. Choice is choice.

You don't get to say faith is choice any more than you get to say faith is peanut butter.

We choose what we choose based on what we believe. But we believe what we believe based on what we have been persuaded is so.

Luke, if God himself says the fear of the Lord is a choice, I am not going to argue with him. If you don't like Proverbs 1:29, just take a magic marker and blot it out of your Bible.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When were you saved Sister Amy...when were you saved...:laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, if God himself says the fear of the Lord is a choice, I am not going to argue with him. If you don't like Proverbs 1:29, just take a magic marker and blot it out of your Bible.

You just don't get it.

I choose to honor and reverence The Lord BASED ON... wait for it... Tune in here... Don't miss this part... Whether or not I HAVE BEEN (did you get that "have been" part? It's important... It means something has HAPPENED TO YOU rather than you doing something) persuaded The Lord ought to be reverenced and honored.

Got it yet?

 

[drfuss]

I have known several people who say they or someone they know only thought they were saved, but then realized they weren't and "accepted Jesus into their hearts".

I do not understand this thinking. I suppose if you "think" you're saved just because you were baptized there would be some legitimate doubt, but in the case where the person had faith, believed, and showed fruit, believing they were saved, and then years later "received" Christ because they weren't really saved, I don't have clue what this means.
If we can "think" we're saved, but in reality we're not, how can anyone possibly have any assurance?

I hope I made sense because as I read this back to myself it sounds goofy.

I commend Amy for being brave enough to start this thread on BB. This thread is very interesting in that it raises issues that many non-eternal security believers say is the weakness in the various eternal security doctrines. The question is how do you describe a person who is a Christian or believes that he is a Christian, and then stops believing in Christ as his Savior. The various descriptions mostly differ in definitions and terminology.

For a person who believes (or says he believes), and then stops believing can be described by the various beliefs systems as follows:

Calvinist - This person was not part of the elect because he stopped believing. If a part of the elect, he would have persevered.

The main ES Belief - This person was not really a True Christian, or he would not have stopped believing.

The Stanley/Hodges ES Belief - This person is a True Christian and even though he stopped believing, he will still got to heaven even if he does believe when he dies. (OSAS).

The Classic Armenian - This person was a Christian, but forfeited his salvation when he stopped believing.

The Wesleyan Armenian - This person was a Christian, but lost his salvation by continuing to resist The Holy Spirit over a long period of time.

It is pointed out here that all of the above beliefs say a person's works has nothing to do with his salvation; and that God takes the first step in drawing people to God. Also, the above belief systems believe that if a person is a believer when he dies, he will go to heaven, except for the Stanley/Hodges belief system who says he will go to heaven anyway. For the Wesleyan Armenian system, a Christian can lose his salvation while still believing if he continues to resist the Holy Spirit's conviction over a long period of time.

From a practical point of view, the differences in beliefs is primarily a difference in definitions and terminology (except for the Stanley/Hodges system).

 

[Winman]

You just don't get it.

I choose to honor and reverence The Lord BASED ON... wait for it... Tune in here... Don't miss this part... Whether or not I HAVE BEEN (did you get that "have been" part? It's important... It means something has HAPPENED TO YOU rather than you doing something) persuaded The Lord ought to be reverenced and honored.

Got it yet?

It is nonsensical for the Lord to condemn someone for something they are unable to do. If the Lord did not persuade them as you insist, and that is the only way they could be persuaded and choose to fear the Lord in your view, then how can he blame them for not being persuaded when he did not persuade them?

Ridiculous view to say the least.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is nonsensical for the Lord to condemn someone for something they are unable to do. If the Lord did not persuade them as you insist, and that is the only way they could be persuaded and choose to fear the Lord in your view, then how can he blame them for not being persuaded when he did not persuade them?

Ridiculous view to say the least.

All of us here were sinners born, all under the condemnation of God for whatAdam chose to do for all of us by His sinful choice, but thank God, that while we were yet sinners , jesus died for theungodly like you and me, so that we could be chosen by Him to get saved by Cross of Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

I commend Amy for being brave enough to start this thread on BB. This thread is very interesting in that it raises issues that many non-eternal security believers say is the weakness in the various eternal security doctrines. The question is how do you describe a person who is a Christian or believes that he is a Christian, and then stops believing in Christ as his Savior. The various descriptions mostly differ in definitions and terminology.

For a person who believes (or says he believes), and then stops believing can be described by the various beliefs systems as follows:

Calvinist - This person was not part of the elect because he stopped believing. If a part of the elect, he would have persevered.

The main ES Belief - This person was not really a True Christian, or he would not have stopped believing.

The Stanley/Hodges ES Belief - This person is a True Christian and even though he stopped believing, he will still got to heaven even if he does believe when he dies. (OSAS).

The Classic Armenian - This person was a Christian, but forfeited his salvation when he stopped believing.

The Wesleyan Armenian - This person was a Christian, but lost his salvation by continuing to resist The Holy Spirit over a long period of time.

It is pointed out here that all of the above beliefs say a person's works has nothing to do with his salvation; and that God takes the first step in drawing people to God. Also, the above belief systems believe that if a person is a believer when he dies, he will go to heaven, except for the Stanley/Hodges belief system who says he will go to heaven anyway. For the Wesleyan Armenian system, a Christian can lose his salvation while still believing if he continues to resist the Holy Spirit's conviction over a long period of time.

From a practical point of view, the differences in beliefs is primarily a difference in definitions and terminology (except for the Stanley/Hodges system).

also, regardless of which system you use to understand this, some of us do have times where due to trials/tribulations, might have those times when we feel Go dis not there, that we are stuck, so might be in a wandering in a desert mode for awhile!

This is why so important to have what we know based upon the objective truth in the bible, and not based upon feelings and circumstances!

 

[Winman]

All of us here were sinners born, all under the condemnation of God for whatAdam chose to do for all of us by His sinful choice, but thank God, that while we were yet sinners , jesus died for theungodly like you and me, so that we could be chosen by Him to get saved by Cross of Christ!

That does not change a thing, it is completely nonsensical for the Lord to condemn someone for something he knows they are born unable to do.

And Ezekiel 18:20 says the son shall not bear the inquity of his father, so I disagree that any man is born guilty of Adam's sin. That also is nonsensical, not to mention completely unjust. The scriptures never say this, you cannot show it.

 

[Yeshua1]

That does not change a thing, it is completely nonsensical for the Lord to condemn someone for something he knows they are born unable to do.

And Ezekiel 18:20 says the son shall not bear the inquity of his father, so I disagree that any man is born guilty of Adam's sin. That also is nonsensical, not to mention completely unjust. The scriptures never say this, you cannot show it.

that passage NOT referring to spiritual state of sinners, it is merely stating that if a Father commits sin, but not the son, God will hold the father accountible for His own sins! referring to how that person will be punished here and now...

 

[agedman]

That does not change a thing, it is completely nonsensical for the Lord to condemn someone for something he knows they are born unable to do.

And Ezekiel 18:20 says the son shall not bear the inquity of his father, so I disagree that any man is born guilty of Adam's sin. That also is nonsensical, not to mention completely unjust. The scriptures never say this, you cannot show it.

Here is the chief problem with Winman's thinking.

In attempting to place what HE considers fair and just as an attribute that God cannot violate, he in effect:

Refutes that God is the creator, not humankind.

That as the creator, God has made vessels of honor and dishonor.

That God's ways, thoughts, justice, ... are both far above any human ability and above any human reproach or question.
​

God doesn't have to appear fair or even fare.

Throughout the Scriptures, God does not show Himself accountable to humankind justice.
Here are just a few:

He purged the whole of the world's land of all life in the flood save those on the ark.
He authorized the slaughter of all firstborn in Eygpt.
He separated out a people that He claimed as His own in rejection of the rest of humankind.
He commanded the total annihilation of all living in the land of Cannan.
He did not tolerate one to live if they didn't conform to His commands
He commanded a fish to swallow a runaway prophet
He demanded that His only natural born son take on sin and die.
​

If ANY human were to attempt to do any of the above (such as did Napoleon, Hitler, Gingus Khan, Vlad III, Nero...) "civilized" humankind looks upon their action as "criminal."

Therefore, Winman's desire to shackle God with humankind character, thinking, and limits is just unsupportable.

Until Winman places the character and nature of God in proper perspective, he will seek out verses that support his bias - even when shown that the use of such Scriptures is not applicable (which has been done over and over), and obstinately refuse to submit to the truth.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Until Winman places the character and nature of God in proper perspective, he will seek out verses that support his bias - even when shown that the use of such Scriptures is not applicable (which has been done over and over), and obstinately refuse to submit to the truth.

A ha..... Hell will freeze over first. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is the chief problem with Winman's thinking.

In attempting to place what HE considers fair and just as an attribute that God cannot violate, he in effect:

Refutes that God is the creator, not humankind.

That as the creator, God has made vessels of honor and dishonor.

That God's ways, thoughts, justice, ... are both far above any human ability and above any human reproach or question.
​

God doesn't have to appear fair or even fare.

Throughout the Scriptures, God does not show Himself accountable to humankind justice.
Here are just a few:

He purged the whole of the world's land of all life in the flood save those on the ark.
He authorized the slaughter of all firstborn in Eygpt.
He separated out a people that He claimed as His own in rejection of the rest of humankind.
He commanded the total annihilation of all living in the land of Cannan.
He did not tolerate one to live if they didn't conform to His commands
He commanded a fish to swallow a runaway prophet
He demanded that His only natural born son take on sin and die.
​

If ANY human were to attempt to do any of the above (such as did Napoleon, Hitler, Gingus Khan, Vlad III, Nero...) "civilized" humankind looks upon their action as "criminal."

Therefore, Winman's desire to shackle God with humankind character, thinking, and limits is just unsupportable.

Until Winman places the character and nature of God in proper perspective, he will seek out verses that support his bias - even when shown that the use of such Scriptures is not applicable (which has been done over and over), and obstinately refuse to submit to the truth.

And he also "dared' to flood the earth, and yet the single greatest crime was when sinful man dared to kill off the Son of God!

 

[Winman]

Here is the chief problem with Winman's thinking.

In attempting to place what HE considers fair and just as an attribute that God cannot violate, he in effect:
Refutes that God is the creator, not humankind.

What a bunch of baloney, whenever anyone points out obvious injustice in the Calvinist system, do Calvinists ever reflect and ask if there might be something wrong with a doctrine that says it is OK to punish a person for what God knows they are unable to do? NO, Calvinists simply fall back on the ol", "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?".

By using this tactic Calvinists do not have to answer for what even they recognize as injustice. Calvinists know as well as anyone that it is unjust to punish persons for what they are unable to do. And if God "hath made me thus", then whose fault is it that I sin?

I think Calvinism is misapplying this scripture here, because it would argue that God is the author of sin.

Not only that, but we see men in scripture holding God to a standard, such as Abraham when God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham told God that it should be far from him to destroy the righteous with the wicked.

Gen 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

Abraham questioned God, Abraham asked God if he would destroy the righteous with the wicked. Then Abraham said, "That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteos with the wicked"

Abraham asked, "Shall not the Judge of the all the earth do right?"

So, men have an innate sense of justice, and men rightly hold God to this standard, just as God holds men to this standard. And God answered and said he would spare the city if he found righteous persons there.

So, this teaching that God can do whatever, even if it seems unjust goes against scripture, it is not what the Bible teaches about the character of God. God is not a hypocrite, God does not break his own laws.

That as the creator, God has made vessels of honor and dishonor.

Paul was saying it is just for God to build up an obedient person like Moses, and to destroy a disobedient person like Pharaoh. All persons would agree this is just.

That God's ways, thoughts, justice, ... are both far above any human ability and above any human reproach or question.
[/INDENT]God doesn't have to appear fair or even fare.

Abraham expected God to be just.

Throughout the Scriptures, God does not show Himself accountable to humankind justice.

Yes he does, he told Abraham he would not destroy the city if there were only 10 just persons there.

Gen 18:32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

Here are just a few:

He purged the whole of the world's land of all life in the flood save those on the ark.​

That's because all men were exceedingly wicked except for Noah and his sons.

He authorized the slaughter of all firstborn in Eygpt.

Yes, but all babies who die go to heaven.

He separated out a people that He claimed as His own in rejection of the rest of humankind.

He did this because Abraham and many of his descendants believed.

He commanded the total annihilation of all living in the land of Cannan.

Because they were exceeding wicked and practiced human sacrifice among many other gross sins.

He did not tolerate one to live if they didn't conform to His commands

God has a right to demand obedience.

He commanded a fish to swallow a runaway prophet

This saved Jonah from drowning and caused him to reconsider and repent.

He demanded that His only natural born son take on sin and die.

If ANY human were to attempt to do any of the above (such as did Napoleon, Hitler, Gingus Khan, Vlad III, Nero...) "civilized" humankind looks upon their action as "criminal."

No they wouldn't. If any man gave his son to save all the rest of mankind, and his son willingly offered to die to save all mankind, all the world would love them and would not think of them as criminals at all.

When a fireman rushes in a burning building and dies trying to save others, do we consider him a criminal?

When a soldier leaps on a hand grenade to save all his buddies in the foxhole with him, do we consider him a criminal?

So, this argument is pure nonsense.

Therefore, Winman's desire to shackle God with humankind character, thinking, and limits is just unsupportable.

False, the story of Abraham shows that men by nature understand what is just, and God holds himself to this standard. God is no hypocrite, Jesus hated hypocrites.

Until Winman places the character and nature of God in proper perspective, he will seek out verses that support his bias - even when shown that the use of such Scriptures is not applicable (which has been done over and over), and obstinately refuse to submit to the truth.

No, it is you and other Calvinists who have suppressed your own natural sense of right and wrong, what is just, misinterpreted scripture, and attributed unjust evil to God.

Abraham knew it is wrong to slay the righteous with the wicked, and he told God "Far be it from you to slay the righteous with the wicked"

Abraham was no Calvinist.

 

[Yeshua1]

What a bunch of baloney, whenever anyone points out obvious injustice in the Calvinist system, do Calvinists ever reflect and ask if there might be something wrong with a doctrine that says it is OK to punish a person for what God knows they are unable to do? NO, Calvinists simply fall back on the ol", "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?".

By using this tactic Calvinists do not have to answer for what even they recognize as injustice. Calvinists know as well as anyone that it is unjust to punish persons for what they are unable to do. And if God "hath made me thus", then whose fault is it that I sin?

I think Calvinism is misapplying this scripture here, because it would argue that God is the author of sin.

Not only that, but we see men in scripture holding God to a standard, such as Abraham when God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham told God that it should be far from him to destroy the righteous with the wicked.

Gen 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

Abraham questioned God, Abraham asked God if he would destroy the righteous with the wicked. Then Abraham said, "That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteos with the wicked"

Abraham asked, "Shall not the Judge of the all the earth do right?"

So, men have an innate sense of justice, and men rightly hold God to this standard, just as God holds men to this standard. And God answered and said he would spare the city if he found righteous persons there.

So, this teaching that God can do whatever, even if it seems unjust goes against scripture, it is not what the Bible teaches about the character of God. God is not a hypocrite, God does not break his own laws.



Paul was saying it is just for God to build up an obedient person like Moses, and to destroy a disobedient person like Pharaoh. All persons would agree this is just.



Abraham expected God to be just.


Yes he does, he told Abraham he would not destroy the city if there were only 10 just persons there.

Gen 18:32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.




That's because all men were exceedingly wicked except for Noah and his sons.



Yes, but all babies who die go to heaven.



He did this because Abraham and many of his descendants believed.



Because they were exceeding wicked and practiced human sacrifice among many other gross sins.



God has a right to demand obedience.



This saved Jonah from drowning and caused him to reconsider and repent.



No they wouldn't. If any man gave his son to save all the rest of mankind, and his son willingly offered to die to save all mankind, all the world would love them and would not think of them as criminals at all.

When a fireman rushes in a burning building and dies trying to save others, do we consider him a criminal?

When a soldier leaps on a hand grenade to save all his buddies in the foxhole with him, do we consider him a criminal?

So, this argument is pure nonsense.



False, the story of Abraham shows that men by nature understand what is just, and God holds himself to this standard. God is no hypocrite, Jesus hated hypocrites.



No, it is you and other Calvinists who have suppressed your own natural sense of right and wrong, what is just, misinterpreted scripture, and attributed unjust evil to God.

Abraham knew it is wrong to slay the righteous with the wicked, and he told God "Far be it from you to slay the righteous with the wicked"

Abraham was no Calvinist.

define righteous! NONE are that before God apart from the shed blood of jesus, so does God have the right to judge those who reject and trample unferfoot the precious blood of the Son of God or not?

 

[Winman]

define righteous! NONE are that before God apart from the shed blood of jesus, so does God have the right to judge those who reject and trample unferfoot the precious blood of the Son of God or not?

Then you do not know your scriptures. Lot was righteous, that is why God sent two angels to bring Lot, his wife, and two of his daughters out of the city. The angels told Lot they could not destroy the city until he was out of it.

Gen 19:15 And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.
16 And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.
17 And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.
18 And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord:
19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:
20 Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.
21 And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.
22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

These angels warned Lot to get out of the city lest he be destroyed. When Lot procrastinated, the angles physically laid hold on them and forcefully brought them out of the city to save them.

Because they were having difficulty getting a safe distance away, the angels allowed the small city of Zoar to be spared for Lot's sake.

Lot was righteous.

2 Pet 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

2 Peter 2:7 tells us Lot was saved, he was "just", that is, his sins were forgiven and he was "righteous".

This is why God did not destroy Lot. God does not just do whatever, he obeys his own laws, he is not a hypocrite.

 

[preacher4truth]

Here is the chief problem with Winman's thinking...Therefore, Winman's desire to shackle God with humankind character, thinking, and limits is just unsupportable.

Until Winman places the character and nature of God in proper perspective, he will seek out verses that support his bias - even when shown that the use of such Scriptures is not applicable (which has been done over and over), and obstinately refuse to submit to the truth.

You've described winman and his unbiblical theology perfectly. Your conclusive remark that he will not submit to the truth is spot on as well.

However, I am amazed with the definition of insanity being used here so oft in attempting to correct winman. Some you just cannot help. The whole thing reminds me of JW's. They know verses but they do not interpret them correctly. Pondering that is a solemn thought. In addition I know of no Baptist who believes the things winman teaches.

 

[Winman]

You've described winman and his unbiblical theology perfectly. Your conclusive remark that he will not submit to the truth is spot on as well.

However, I am amazed with the definition of insanity being used here so oft in attempting to correct winman. Some you just cannot help. The whole thing reminds me of JW's. They know verses but they do not interpret them correctly. Pondering that is a solemn thought. In addition I know of no Baptist who believes the things winman teaches.

Then show me which verses I have interpreted incorrectly. I am all ears.

 

[agedman]

Here is the chief problem with Winman's thinking.

In attempting to place what HE considers fair and just as an attribute that God cannot violate, he in effect:

Refutes that God is the creator, not humankind.

What a bunch of baloney, whenever anyone points out obvious injustice in the Calvinist system, do Calvinists ever reflect and ask if there might be something wrong with a doctrine that says it is OK to punish a person for what God knows they are unable to do? NO, Calvinists simply fall back on the ol", "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?".

By using this tactic Calvinists do not have to answer for what even they recognize as injustice. Calvinists know as well as anyone that it is unjust to punish persons for what they are unable to do. And if God "hath made me thus", then whose fault is it that I sin?

I think Calvinism is misapplying this scripture here, because it would argue that God is the author of sin.

Not only that, but we see men in scripture holding God to a standard, such as Abraham when God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham told God that it should be far from him to destroy the righteous with the wicked.

Gen 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

Abraham questioned God, Abraham asked God if he would destroy the righteous with the wicked. Then Abraham said, "That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteos with the wicked"

Abraham asked, "Shall not the Judge of the all the earth do right?"

So, and men rightly hold God to this standard, just as God holds men to this standard. And God answered and said he would spare the city if he found righteous persons there.

So, this teaching that God can do whatever, even if it seems unjust goes against scripture, it is not what the Bible teaches about the character of God. God is not a hypocrite, God does not break his own laws.

Just because GOD has a sense of justice and is able to "judge the whole earth" does not mean that "men have an innate sense of justice." Children have to be TAUGHT what is right, just, ... - they by nature are not born with "innate sense of justice."

History has shown that not only is that sense not existent, but what little justice humankind consider outside of the Scriptures is perverted and actually unjust.

That as the creator, God has made vessels of honor and dishonor.

Paul was saying it is just for God to build up an obedient person like Moses, and to destroy a disobedient person like Pharaoh. All persons would agree this is just.

​

So it is Ok to apply the statement to ALL humankind? God will build up those who are His and destroy all others?

Isn't this what you proclaim as unjust? Isn't this EXACTLY what Calvinistic thinking holds as true?

False, the story of Abraham shows that men by nature understand what is just, and God holds himself to this standard. God is no hypocrite, Jesus hated hypocrites.

GOD does NOT hold himself to any human standard.

God sets the standard and holds humankind to HIS standard. Because you perceive the opposite to be true it has impacted your perspective of what is actually correct.

No, it is you and other Calvinists who have suppressed your own natural sense of right and wrong, what is just, misinterpreted scripture, and attributed unjust evil to God.

Abraham knew it is wrong to slay the righteous with the wicked, and he told God "Far be it from you to slay the righteous with the wicked"

Abraham was no Calvinist.

Abraham NEVER questioned God's standard of righteousness. He questioned the application.

It seems to be your desire to confuse the two principles (standard and application).

When God was visiting with Abraham, did He already know how many righteous were in the city(ies), or was God just guessing and bargaining with Abraham?

All your illustration has done was support a view in which you want to refute, and is no credit in upholding your thinking.