Rain on the "Just" and "Unjust" ?

[jonathanD]

Rich Young Ruler Mark 10:21:

"ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ἠγάπησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἕν σοί ὑστερεῖ ὕπαγε ὅσα ἔχεις πώλησον καὶ δὸς τοῖς πτωχοῖς καὶ ἕξεις θησαυρὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι ἄρας τὸν σταυρόν"

The highlighted word is AGAPE (egapesen from agapeo). By all accounts, the RYR was not elect, and yet Jesus showed the same expression of love to Him as His children, or "the elect".

And the love you have for a wife can not be compared to the love that God can have towards all. Can you claim that you love your wife PERFECTLY...ALL THE TIME? Yet you can demonstrate AGAPE towards other women, you simply can not demonstrate eros toward other women, but in that respect, neither does God.

Fallacy of division.

 

[jonathanD]

Fallacy of division.

Pointing out your fallacies is a FT job, so I'm bowing out. I think you've been sufficiently shown as being deceptive. I'll be praying for you, but I'll no longer be bickering with you.

 

[Inspector Javert]

There are some presuppositions in your post that are not accurate from a Biblicist point of view.



What was elected in 2 Thes 2:13 was not salvation but the MEANS of salvation: through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Yet if God predetermines a select group of people of which are equally as undeserving of salvation as those whom He elected to damn, then in fact, God IS a respecter of persons. It is only when God gives men the choice to believe Him of their own free will that He can not be accused of being a respecter of persons because those who are damned take on the responsibility for their own damnation.

"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." James 5:19-20

In contrast to this basis for just condemnation of all mankind equally is the Grace and Mercy of God.

.

Neither vessels of mercy nor vessels of wrath have anything to do with HOW or WHY they were created. If that were true, a vessel of wrath would also be a vessel of child molestation, a vessel of rape, a vessel of murder, a vessel of blasphemy.

This vessel was formed IN TIME, not in eternity. Your status as a vessel of honor or to dishonor depends on YOU:

"But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. " 2 Tim 2:20-21

The Potter can change his mind as He is forming the vessel and make it into another vessel.

"Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it." Jeremiah 18:3-4

These vessels were not marred by the potter himself. But nevertheless the difference between the bad and good vessel is OBEDIENCE.

"At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. Jer 18:7-8

The vessel in Jeremiah 19 that is a "vessel of wrath" God disgards because that vessel had FORSAKEN GOD. Jeremiah 19:1-4, 10




You have a mistaken view of justice. Justice does not only punish the guilty but vindicates the non guilty. Romans 13 with 1 Peter 2:14 " Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well." (a concept forgotten and neglected in ALL legal systems today). Thus a type of election that selects only a certain few and declares them righteous is still a JUDICIAL declaration of sinners made righteous through Christ-justice. It is a matter of justice whether they were determined to be saved or whether salvation was responsive.

It is a complete contradiction in terms to hold that man is predetermined to eternal damnation, and that because he suffers from a total inability which shows that he can not act or believe otherwise, that he is at the same time justly damned of his own FREE choice. You can not at the same time hold that the sinner is given a bona fide offer of salvation which must include the actually ability to be accepted, and then hold that such offer will only be accepted by the elect.




So it pleased God to damn sinners before they were even born? Perish the thought. As I have stated heretofore in this thread, such a view makes the demonstration of God's sovereignty DEPEND on evil, and such is a myopic view that the omnipotent God of eternity who needed no demonstration to prove He is God prior to creation that He must needs depend on evil or anything in creation to PROVE and demonstrate who and what He is. When God said "I AM THAT I AM", that was and IS all that is necessary to prove who God is.


John 3:16 "For God so agapaō the world..." You assertion that there are different levels of AGAPE is not accurate. The Greek and Hebrew have various terms for affection and commitment, but in English the word "love" covers all of them. Yet even in the Greek, the highest form of unconditional love is directed to THE WORLD and the WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH.

Show me one verse in the New Testament where God shows a different usage of the word love in any form from His creation of trees, animals, and humans. I can see an evolutionist using an argument like that, but not any Bible believing Christian. That is akin to ascribing God's treatment of animals no different than His treatment of humans, and if that was the case, animals would be sacrificing humans for sin in the OT, not the other way around.

The end of your argument is EXACTLY what Jovert refuted in his OP, and you pretty much just proved his point.

:thumbs::thumbs::jesus: A perfect Biblical response to the abuse usually employed with the "vessel" metaphor. You put more insight into that particular metaphor than I have ever seen in my life. Inexplicably.....you simply let the Scriptures explain it for themselves...............................................weird....what manner of witch-craft is this???

 

[DrJamesAch]

Replies in red.

Your replies in red are merely a repeat of the same thing that I've already answered in several DIFFERENT ways. Your denial of the scriptures are simply"

"Nope, thats not true"
"see above"
"same as before"
"That's not true"
"That isn't true either"
"I know you are but what am I"
"I'm rubber you're glue"
"That's poor exegesis"

You apparently (more like, obviously) have no clue how a debate works. A debate has a pattern that adds to the argument as it progresses with new points of view that evolve in rebuttals and surrebuttals. You have merely re-stated your opening argument without any effective or logical cross examination or rebuttal and surrebuttals.

Your trial tactics are like:

Judge: The defense (that would be you since you are attacking the Prosecutors OP) Is the defense ready?

Def: "Yes your honor"

Pros: "Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, I will prove that John Calvin promulgated the murder of Michael Servetus"

Def" "ladies and gents, that's not true:

Pros: (First Witness) Did you receive a letter from John Calvin that stated if Servetus ever arrived in Geneva that Calvin swore not to let him leave alive"

(NOTICE how the first question differs from the opening statement and adds to the argument and progresses the prosecution).

Def: "Um...that's not true"

Judge: "Do have any specific arguments that shows the Pros statement is not true?

Def: "Its just not true. I rest my case. I have proven the Pros wrong".

This is how you and the majority of Calvinists on here defend their views. Summary denials with no actual or effectual rebuttals, and circular reasoning.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Fallacy of division.

And yet another perfect example of a summary dismissal without any effective explanation as to how the content fits the definition of an argument that YOU CREATED (argument about your wife).

Here, let me help you argue your own case, and then perhaps I'll have a meaningful debate with MYSELF.

A division of fallacy is where a person argues that what is true of one thing must be true for all of its parts or counterparts. But to make this accusation STICK, you have to prove that the remaining elements are NOT TRUE in and of themselves.

Did you prove that God does not eros women or humanity in general? NO
Did you prove that a husband can not AGAPE other women, he simply can not EROS them? No. Jesus told ALL of his disciples to LOVE ONE ANOTHER (AGAPE) so not only CAN a husband love other women, he is COMMANDED TO as a brother in Christ. Did you refute that? No.

When proving the fallacy of division, you failed to show how each of the divisions were themselves not true. You offered no logical or factual basis for your conclusion and certainly no Biblical evidence. Just a summary accusation of a fallacy that you don't understand. If you are going to use certain fallacy arguments, you need to learn the rules of how they apply within a debate context instead of just relying on the simple definitions. Fallacies of logic and philosophy do not prove someone's argument wrong simply because you site one of them. THEY HAVE RULES AND APPLICATIONS TO THEM and the burden of proof is on YOU to show HOW THEY APPLY.

 

[The Biblicist]

What was elected in 2 Thes 2:13 was not salvation but the MEANS of salvation: through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Nobody said that it was "salvation" that was elected. What was elected were persons as "you" is the direct object of "chosen" while "salvation" is the indirect object of "chosen." These person where chose UNTO salvation as "salvation" is the direct object of the preposition "eis" and "salvation" is found in accusative case thus showing the point of termination is "salvation."

"sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" are the direct objects of the preposition "dia" not "eis" as you are attempting to teach. Thus both the persons and the means are chosen by God.

Yet if God predetermines a select group of people of which are equally as undeserving of salvation as those whom He elected to damn,

You are skewing the argument by erroneous statements. Election is NEVER found in scripture in connection with damnation. That is a complete misrepresentation by Arminimains. Damnation needs no election as it is the just consequences of the fall for all mankind equally. Hence, no election is necessary or is it logical to claim such.

Again Romans 3:20-23 presupposes the whole lump represents the totallity of fallen mankind. If not, then "mercy" is not necessary as a lump representing unfallen mankind is in no need of "mercy." Hence, the idea that God elected men to damnation ascribes the cause of sin to God rather than to mankind. The Bible NEVER attributes damnation to election.

However, the Bible does attribute salvation to election and an act of "grace" (Rom. 11:5). You may not like that fact, and it may mess up your system of belief but nevertheless it is a FACT of Scripture that cannot be honestly overthrown.

then in fact, God IS a respecter of persons.

Based upon your illogical and unbiblical assertion that damnation is by election then your conclusion would be true. However, your assertion is false and therefore there is nothing found in the elect that is not found in the non-elect - equally sinful - equally deserving of justice. Hence, no respect of Persons as the reason is found only IN GOD not in the elect.

It is only when God gives men the choice to believe Him of their own free will that He can not be accused of being a respecter of persons because those who are damned take on the responsibility for their own damnation.

There is no such thing as absolute "free will" in the universe as God Himself does not have such a "free will." His nature dictates his choices. There are things the Bible says God cannot choose because they are contrary to his nature - He cannot lie, He cannot sin, He cannot create an "everlasting God."

Likewise, the will of the fallen nature is limited by that fallen nature as explicitly spelled out in Romans 8:7 - "neither indeed CAN be"

The Non-elect are simply left to their own FREE WILL or a will that is free to operate within their fallen nature and its limitations.

The will is not an independent agent, but is the servant of the mind and emotions. You will NEVER choose anythng contrary to what you think or feel. If a man points a gun to your head and asks for your wallet, you may not feel like giving it to him but your mind tells you if you do not there will be consequences and so you choose intellectually to override your emotions or vice versa. There is no such thing as a "will" free of the absolute control of either intellect or emotions whether in God or in man.

"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." James 5:19-20

The means of salvation is equally chosen as the persons of salvation and so this text proves nothing.


.

Neither vessels of mercy nor vessels of wrath have anything to do with HOW or WHY they were created.

This is not a context dealing with creation or the purpose of creation. This is a context dealing with ALREADY CREATED AND FALLEN mankind and God's right to do with FALLEN CONDEMNED MANKIND what he wills. To do what HE WILLS is the whole point of this illustration. Your position denies that fundemental fact of this illustration.

If that were true, a vessel of wrath would also be a vessel of child molestation, a vessel of rape, a vessel of murder, a vessel of blasphemy.

This is irrational and unbiblical. As said, this is an illustration of already FALLEN mankind and God's right to do with them as He pleases. Your argument is based upon the irrational and unbiblial idea that God elected people to hell and thus is responsible for sin and its consequences rather than sinners. The Bible does not attribute or connect election with the fall or with sin.

This vessel was formed IN TIME, not in eternity.

Again, you are ignoring the contextual fact that This vessel was formed by separating it from the FALLEN lump of clay. Time does not change either the source from whence it is being separated from nor the eternal purposes of God.

Your status as a vessel of honor or to dishonor depends on YOU:[/

"But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. " 2 Tim 2:20-21

You are confusing two different contexts about two different subjects. The former context has to do with the actual forming of the vessel while the latter speaks of the use after already having been formed. Again, the usage of "dishonor" cannot be attributed to God as that is found in the nature of the lump prior to forming and using which is a FALLEN condition. Hence, God cannot be held responsible for either their fallen condition or their choice in a fallen condition that results in "dishonor."

However, the latter passage does not include the lost but only the saved and the various uses God has for only the saved as only the saved are in His "house" and only the saved are "prepared unto every good work." Saved people can honor or dishonor the Lord.

The Potter can change his mind as He is forming the vessel and make it into another vessel.

"Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it." Jeremiah 18:3-4

These vessels were not marred by the potter himself. But nevertheless the difference between the bad and good vessel is OBEDIENCE.

Confession is good for the soul. The problem with your whole line of reasoning is found in your confession "These vessels were not marred by the Potter himself." Hence, the marring represents the fallen condition of each and every vessel WHILE ON THE POTTER'S WHEEL. Hence, every vessel while on the potter's wheel is fallen BEFORE they are formed into a vessel of wrath or mercy. Moroever, this formation into a vessel of wrath or mercy occurs while on the potter's wheel instead of afterwards. They come off the potters wheel as vessels of wrath or mercy rather than afterwards at some subsequent event in their life.

"At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. Jer 18:7-8

Again, you are conflicting a NATIONAL application with a PERSONAL application. Paul is not speaking about NATIONS in Romans 9:20-23 as verse 24 demonstrates very clearly:

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Furthermore, a nation can turn from their evil but that does not mean the nation experiences SPIRITUAL salvation of all its citizens so your analogy breaks down. However, the gifts and callings of God in regard to salvation is "without repentance."

Paul is neither quoting the whole context of Jeremiah or using the specific application by Jeremiah. He is borrowing this story to illustrate a different point than used by jeremiah.

 

[The Biblicist]

Nobody said that it was "salvation" that was elected. What was elected were persons as "you" is the direct object of "chosen" while "salvation" is the indirect object of "chosen." These person where chose UNTO salvation as "salvation" is the direct object of the preposition "eis" and "salvation" is found in accusative case thus showing the point of termination is "salvation."

"sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" are the direct objects of the preposition "dia" not "eis" as you are attempting to teach. Thus both the persons and the means are chosen by God.







You are skewing the argument by erroneous statements. Election is NEVER found in scripture in connection with damnation. That is a complete misrepresentation by Arminimains. Damnation needs no election as it is the just consequences of the fall for all mankind equally. Hence, no election is necessary or is it logical to claim such.

Again Romans 3:20-23 presupposes the whole lump represents the totallity of fallen mankind. If not, then "mercy" is not necessary as a lump representing unfallen mankind is in no need of "mercy." Hence, the idea that God elected men to damnation ascribes the cause of sin to God rather than to mankind. The Bible NEVER attributes damnation to election.

However, the Bible does attribute salvation to election and an act of "grace" (Rom. 11:5). You may not like that fact, and it may mess up your system of belief but nevertheless it is a FACT of Scripture that cannot be honestly overthrown.




Based upon your illogical and unbiblical assertion that damnation is by election then your conclusion would be true. However, your assertion is false and therefore there is nothing found in the elect that is not found in the non-elect - equally sinful - equally deserving of justice. Hence, no respect of Persons as the reason is found only IN GOD not in the elect.



There is no such thing as absolute "free will" in the universe as God Himself does not have such a "free will." His nature dictates his choices. There are things the Bible says God cannot choose because they are contrary to his nature - He cannot lie, He cannot sin, He cannot create an "everlasting God."

Likewise, the will of the fallen nature is limited by that fallen nature as explicitly spelled out in Romans 8:7 - "neither indeed CAN be"

The Non-elect are simply left to their own FREE WILL or a will that is free to operate within their fallen nature and its limitations.

The will is not an independent agent, but is the servant of the mind and emotions. You will NEVER choose anythng contrary to what you think or feel. If a man points a gun to your head and asks for your wallet, you may not feel like giving it to him but your mind tells you if you do not there will be consequences and so you choose intellectually to override your emotions or vice versa. There is no such thing as a "will" free of the absolute control of either intellect or emotions whether in God or in man.



The means of salvation is equally chosen as the persons of salvation and so this text proves nothing.


.



This is not a context dealing with creation or the purpose of creation. This is a context dealing with ALREADY CREATED AND FALLEN mankind and God's right to do with FALLEN CONDEMNED MANKIND what he wills. To do what HE WILLS is the whole point of this illustration. Your position denies that fundemental fact of this illustration.




This is irrational and unbiblical. As said, this is an illustration of already FALLEN mankind and God's right to do with them as He pleases. Your argument is based upon the irrational and unbiblial idea that God elected the fall and thus is responsible for sin and its consequences rather than sinners. The Bible does not attribute or connect election with the fall or with sin.



Again, you are ignoring the contextual fact that This vessel was formed by separating it from the FALLEN lump of clay. Time does not change either the source from whence it is being separated from nor the eternal purposes of God.



You are confusing two different contexts about two different subjects. The former context has to do with the actual forming of the vessel while the latter speaks of the use after already having been formed. Again, the usage of "dishonor" cannot be attributed to God as that is found in the nature of the lump prior to forming and using which is a FALLEN condition. Hence, God cannot be held responsible for either their fallen condition or their choice in a fallen condition that results in "dishonor."

However, the latter passage does not include the lost but only the saved and the various uses God has for only the saved as only the saved are in His "house" and only the saved are "prepared unto every good work." Saved people can honor or dishonor the Lord.





Confession is good for the soul. The problem with your whole line of reasoning is found in your confession "These vessels were not marred by the Potter himself." Hence, the marring represents the fallen condition of each and every vessel WHILE ON THE POTTER'S WHEEL. Hence, every vessel while on the potter's wheel is fallen BEFORE they are formed into a vessel of wrath or mercy. Moroever, this formation into a vessel of wrath or mercy occurs while on the potter's wheel instead of afterwards. They come off the potters wheel as vessels of wrath or mercy rather than afterwards at some subsequent event in their life.




Again, you are conflicting a NATIONAL application with a PERSONAL application. Paul is not speaking about NATIONS in Romans 9:20-23 as verse 24 demonstrates very clearly:

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Furthermore, a nation can turn from their evil but that does not mean the nation experiences SPIRITUAL salvation of all its citizens so your analogy breaks down. However, the gifts and callings of God in regard to salvation is "without repentance."

Paul is neither quoting the whole context of Jeremiah or using the specific application by Jeremiah. He is borrowing this story to illustrate a different point than used by jeremiah.

You have a mistaken view of justice. Justice does not only punish the guilty but vindicates the non guilty.

Your problem is that there are NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE and so there are none to vindicate who are "non guilty." God is dealing with FALLEN mankind on the potter's wheel not INNOCENT mankind.

It is a complete contradiction in terms to hold that man is predetermined to eternal damnation,

Again, this is not my position at all and election to damnation cannot be found in the scriptures. This is your argument which is not only unbiblical but irrational. Nor does "election to salvation" require election to damnation IF those elected to salvation are chosen out from the TOTALITY OF FALLEN mankind. This is the case.

So it pleased God to damn sinners before they were even born? Perish the thought.

Again, this is your imagination at work. The very doctrine of a PREFALLEN mass of mankind from which some are chosen to salvation repudiates the very basis of your reasoning. There is no need to elect to damnation those already in a fallen condition and thus all equally condemned. If election to salvation is about those chosen out of FALLEN mankind, if the vessel of mercy is equally marred on the potters wheel as the vessel of mercy then your reasoning and argument simply vanish into irrationality.

As I have stated heretofore in this thread, such a view makes the demonstration of God's sovereignty DEPEND on evil,

Only because your argument is not based upon either Scripture or the suprainfralapsarian view of election.

John 3:16 "For God so agapaō the world..." You assertion that there are different levels of AGAPE is not accurate. The Greek and Hebrew have various terms for affection and commitment, but in English the word "love" covers all of them. Yet even in the Greek, the highest form of unconditional love is directed to THE WORLD and the WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH.

You are simply in error. The same Greek term "agape" is used for various levels of relationships that are not equal. To "agape" your enemy is not the same level of "agape" between Christ and His church or between a husband and his wife and yet it is the very same word used to describe all of these relationships.

Show me one verse in the New Testament where God shows a different usage

I asserted it is the SAME word used in all instances but represents different LEVELS of relationship. Agape for enemies and agape for your spouse are not equal levels of agape. Simple let a man place a gun to the head of your enemy and the head of your wife and you will demonstrate exactly what I mean. You have agape for both but not at the same level.

 

[salzer mtn]

Typed this response in another thread wherein Calvinists were attempting to argue that since "rain falls on the just and the un-just"...that God "loves" everyone:
I thought this response was warranted:

Yes it does.

And wiser men know that it would be more loving of God to simply never have created or breathed the breath of life into the poor damned wretch to begin with.

It were certainly better for the pre-damned wretch for God NEVER to have CREATED THEM than that he possibly give them some 75+years of temporal Earthly "prosperity" only to condemn them to an infinite ETERNITY of torture. I'm pretty sure anyone would take the "just don't create me to begin with" option, if given a choice.

B.T.W: Isn't this "rain shines on just and unjust" argument taxed a little more than it can pay?

Lemme ask the Cal sycophants who are so addicted to this crack-rock of an argument a few questions:

1.) Do ALL of the condemned receive this "rain" or earthly blessing? I mean..do ALL of the "condemned" receive a "love" from God in terms of temporal Earthly prosperity?

2.) Aren't there MANY heathen condemned persons who ostensibly live their ENTIRE LIVES in squalor, poverty emotional and physical pain who go on to an eternity of hell and torment?

3.) Do you contend that ALL (heck even MOST) of the damned live lives of temporal happiness and success?

4.) If "the rain shines on the just and the un-just" don't the "monsoons" and "floods" and "tornadoes" and "hurricanes" do likewise?

5.) Does God protect the damned from natural disasters and famine and plague and war in a way such that they are "loved" by not ever having to experience them?

6.) Does the following scenario I am proposing NOT exist?

a.) A young girl is born to impoverished parents in India in 900 a.d.
b.) Her "father" is a vicious and perverted wretch who cares little for his wife or his own children
c.) Her "father" divides his time between working, paying insurmountable debts and visiting with disease-ridden un-bathed prostitutes who have given him venereal diseases which he passed on to his wife years ago, purchasing opiates and alcohol to dull the misery and meaningless and pain of his existence, and occasionally molesting his 8-year old daughter who subsists on roughly a bowl of rice and some tepid water a day plus some aging and fouling fish once per week.
d.) At the age of twelve her father dies, and she and her widowed mother (who statistically had 3 children die in infancy or before age 5) scrape out a living gathering refuse and weaving carpets and drapes for a nominal subsistence.
e.) When our fortunate lass reaches the age of fifteen her mother dies of a combination of malnutrition, leprosy and the venereal diseases her "husband" passed onto her 15-years ago.
f.) Our young lass (not knowing how else to eek out a meager existence) resorts to some form of prostitution in order survive..........(after all, she lost her virginity at age 7 to her father anyway no?)
g.) She feels little or no guilt for her life-style since she was born (according to God's perfect [and quite loving] decree) a sinner who "wants" to do nothing but sin and hasn't heard the gospel or that anyone "loves" her (whatever the heck that means).
h.) After 15 years of survival as a prostitute and at the ripe old age of 30 she shares a particular venereal disease with a man not unlike her own loving "father" who then passes that on to his OWN wife (but this is ancillary to our story).
More importantly......at the age of thirty.....she is withered, sick, aged, broken-down, and looks like she is fifty or more, and cannot reasonably charge the 10 rupees she used to charge....(since there are too many 16-year olds commanding that price)......so she has to drop her price down to 5 rupees per encounter.
I.) Eight years, 5 mis-carriages and one (now deceased) son who survived to the age of 4 later, she dies at the happy old age of 38..........sick and broken-down while bathing in the filthy waters of the Ganges River hoping to wash away her "sins" (whatever those are)........and she goes on to the GLORIOUS "loving" eternity of perpetual fires and punishment for her status as the "non-elect".....After all, she is indeed a "sinner" who "chose" to reject a God she's never heard of, thus, she must suffer eternally for having rejected him.

Conclusion: Calvinists delude themselves with this scenario of prosperity pouring down on the damned. You can have the "rain on just and unjust" argument sure................as long as you include my (quite accurate) scenario along with it. I promise you, it's far more common than the billionaire play-boy scenario you imagine.

As I stated earlier....................if my wife "loved" me in a similar manner as God as taught by Calvinism is a God who "loves".................................................
I'll pass on Calvinism "love", and just take the "don't create or 'love' me at all" option.

Care to defend your scenario farther?

This is my answer to the scenario. Because of the fall there has been a curse put upon this world. The ground is cursed, Gen 3:17. and by the ground being cursed man has to toil by the sweat of his face Gen 3:19. Also by the fall came death to all living Gen 3:19. By the fall of Adam also came sin and murder Gen 4:8. Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. If there is someone to blame in the scenario concerning the girl that grew up and died never knowing kindness or love, blame it on Adam and his transgression. There has been many that question God, why did he destroyed nations of Israel's enemies both woman and children, my only answer is what God chooses to do is always right. If I question God on the above scenario I would have to question God as to why do some Christians live in bodily pain all their life or why do some Christians lose their children to diseases and different things. Who said that life is fair ? Who said that life is supposed to be all fun and games ? The young and the vain person might believe God owes them fame and fortune but the wise know that it is not so.

 

[Amy.G]

Lemme ask the Cal sycophants who are so addicted to this crack-rock of an argument a few questions:

...................................snipped

a.) A young girl is born to impoverished parents in India in 900 a.d.
she dies at the happy old age of 38..........sick and broken-down while bathing in the filthy waters of the Ganges River hoping to wash away her "sins" (whatever those are)........and she goes on to the GLORIOUS "loving" eternity of perpetual fires and punishment for her status as the "non-elect".....After all, she is indeed a "sinner" who "chose" to reject a God she's never heard of, thus, she must suffer eternally for having rejected him.

How do you explain this scenario as a non-cal?

I have trouble explaining it regardless of doctrinal stance on either side. I don't claim to know the answer but apparently you do. So please explain.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.[/QUOTE]THE BIBLICIST

Nobody said that it was "salvation" that was elected. What was elected were persons as "you" is the direct object of "chosen" while "salvation" is the indirect object of "chosen." These person where chose UNTO salvation as "salvation" is the direct object of the preposition "eis" and "salvation" is found in accusative case thus showing the point of termination is "salvation."

"sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" are the direct objects of the preposition "dia" not "eis" as you are attempting to teach. Thus both the persons and the means are chosen by God.

I have already debated this with Archangel and several others to show that such an interpretation of Greek is erroneous to imply that dia is always used as a means of instrumentality as opposed to en (not eis). And the accusative case of eis has NOTHING to do with the last half of the verse, it only shows the subject of the first prepositional phrase and finishes by showing what they were elected to which was salvation to salvation BY, THROUGH, MEANS OF sanctification. EVERY Greek scholar agrees with this interpretation and the ONE or TWO that don't, agree that they can not PROVE that the Calvinist interpretation of this verse can be forced into such an interpretation.

You are skewing the argument by erroneous statements. Election is NEVER found in scripture in connection with damnation. That is a complete misrepresentation by Arminimains. Damnation needs no election as it is the just consequences of the fall for all mankind equally. Hence, no election is necessary or is it logical to claim such.

I never said it election was IN SCRIPTURE about those who are damned, that is the CALVINIST POSITION:

"III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death." WC ch 3

Furthermore, I am not an Arminian. It is funny to hear those accusations when most Calvinists have no idea how much Jacobus Arminius actually AGREED with John Calvin on (he even graduated from the college that Calvin started) included Calvin's view of baby sprinkling.

Again Romans 3:20-23 presupposes the whole lump represents the totallity of fallen mankind. If not, then "mercy" is not necessary as a lump representing unfallen mankind is in no need of "mercy." Hence, the idea that God elected men to damnation ascribes the cause of sin to God rather than to mankind. The Bible NEVER attributes damnation to election.

Now you are mixing scriptures out of context. Romans 3 has nothing to do with the lump of Romans 9. You can not take a verse that says Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the fole of an ass, and then quote David riding across the land in his triumph and show that Jesus may have had access to a sports car.

However, the Bible does attribute salvation to election and an act of "grace" (Rom. 11:5). You may not like that fact, and it may mess up your system of belief but nevertheless it is a FACT of Scripture that cannot be honestly overthrown.

WE AGREE ON THIS. I DO believe that election is biblical, but it has nothing to do with God predeterming a select group of people to be saved. Furthermore, you are contradicting yourself in one paragraph above arguing that election applies ONLY to a certain class of future believers, and then claiming election does not involve salvation. There very fact that you argue 2 Thess applies to elect who are elected "TO salvation" is a clear demonstration of your self contradictory statements to this effect.

Based upon your illogical and unbiblical assertion that damnation is by election then your conclusion would be true. However, your assertion is false and therefore there is nothing found in the elect that is not found in the non-elect - equally sinful - equally deserving of justice. Hence, no respect of Persons as the reason is found only IN GOD not in the elect.

Again, that is not MY assertion, I don't believe that God predetermines or elects ANYONE to hell. That is the clear and unambiguous statement from every Calvinist theologian and creed ever written (as linked above).

There is no such thing as absolute "free will" in the universe as God Himself does not have such a "free will." His nature dictates his choices. There are things the Bible says God cannot choose because they are contrary to his nature - He cannot lie, He cannot sin, He cannot create an "everlasting God."

Again, as I stated before, if God did not have free will to create, then He created out of necessity because to be God He HAD TO CREATE. That makes God dependent on His creation which shows no difference between Him being God and being equal to His creation because His creation in effect dictates the boundaries of His will which is classic PANTHEISM. If God's will is merely compatible, WHAT OR WHO IS IT COMPATIBLE TO?? You can not argue for a compatibilistic will of God without a standard of comparison, so either there must be some other god to compare God to or you must give creation and equally divine status that has the ability to limit God's freedom and of which FORCES HIM TO CREATE which ultimately makes God DEPENDENT upon evil to demonstrate His holiness.

NO WAY AROUND THAT.

Likewise, the will of the fallen nature is limited by that fallen nature as explicitly spelled out in Romans 8:7 - "neither indeed CAN be"

This is a complete misinterpretation of Romans 8. Romans 8:7 has nothing to do with the will of fallen natured men. It is a reference to a person that believes they can please God with a carnal mind "So then they that are in the flesh can not PLEASE GOD" v8. (believers and unbelievers alike, 1 Corinthians 3:3) If this has to do with a person's salvation, then do you also contend that a person is saved by mortifying the deeds of the flesh in 8:13?

Romans 2:14-16 and Romans 1:17-18 show that the law of God is manifest in the conscience of unbelievers. It is not that the will can not be subject to God, it is that the will WON'T BE subject to God, and those who do not subject themselves to God CAN NOT PLEASE HIM. You are reading WILL into a verse that IS NOT THERE.

The Non-elect are simply left to their own FREE WILL or a will that is free to operate within their fallen nature and its limitations.

The will is not an independent agent, but is the servant of the mind and emotions. You will NEVER choose anythng contrary to what you think or feel. If a man points a gun to your head and asks for your wallet, you may not feel like giving it to him but your mind tells you if you do not there will be consequences and so you choose intellectually to override your emotions or vice versa. There is no such thing as a "will" free of the absolute control of either intellect or emotions whether in God or in man.

This is non-sense. The Calvinist view of combatalistic freedom to be consistent would have to show that God puts the reprobate will within the sinner, who then can not ever act otherwise than from the immoral will that is programmed into him which still makes God the author of his sin. However, that will needs to be consistent with his evil tendencies and the Bible is replete with passages that show that evil men perform righteous acts. Matthew 5:20, Matthew 7:11, Proverbs 14:34, Acts 10:35 as well as the example of Cornelius, an unsaved Roman centurion who demonstrated good acts BEFORE he was saved.

For your view of compatibilist freedom to be true, men would have to be CONSISTENTLY EVIL.

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" Eccl 7:29

The will being an independent is exactly what it is or it can not be in any sense of term free in a libertarian OR compatibilistic view. Desires and wants are merely the available options in which the will has to choose from, but nevertheless the choice itself is not the desire. When Solomon gave 2 mothers the option of receiving 2 halves of a child (1 Kings 3) the real mother did not make a choice that she WANTED to make (giving up her child to the unlawful mother to spare the child's life). She WANTED the child in her custody but her will did not determine the outcome.

And furthermore, Paul says the exact opposite in Romans 7 of what he WILLS to do as opposed to what he DOES DO. Romans 7:15-18

This is not a context dealing with creation or the purpose of creation. This is a context dealing with ALREADY CREATED AND FALLEN mankind and God's right to do with FALLEN CONDEMNED MANKIND what he wills. To do what HE WILLS is the whole point of this illustration. Your position denies that fundemental fact of this illustration.

Not only does this fail to rebut the lengthy explanation of OT support from which this passage is derived that proves you are misinterpreting it, but the Calvinist view of election is that it was done BEFORE ETERNITY BEGAN. You can not claim that this verse speaks of an ETERNAL DECREE OF ELECTION and yet admit that these vessels were ALREADY CREATED, and done so IN TIME, NOT IN ETERNITY and consistently maintain the Calvinist view of this passage.




Part 2 next post

 

[kyredneck]

Rich Young Ruler Mark 10:21:....By all accounts, the RYR was not elect, and yet Jesus showed the same expression of love to Him as His children, or "the elect".....

By no means is it 'by all accounts' the young man was unregenerate, although undoubtedly by superficial shallow accounts such as your's he was not elect.

The young man in Mk 10 RAN to Christ, KNEELED before Him, and addressed Him with DIVINE RESPECT, and Christ loved the young man and did not dispute the young man's claim of doing those things of the law, and it was not Christ that the young man rejected, it was Christ's call to discipleship:

"....All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." Mt 19:20,21

This is just a snapshot of this young man, similar to the one given of Nicodemus in Jn 3, they both were attracted to the Saviour. Who knows if he didn't become as one of those in Acts 2 who 'sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need'.

I choose not to judge him harshly, it doesn't appear that Christ did.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Part 2

.

This is irrational and unbiblical. As said, this is an illustration of already FALLEN mankind and God's right to do with them as He pleases. Your argument is based upon the irrational and unbiblial idea that God elected people to hell and thus is responsible for sin and its consequences rather than sinners. The Bible does not attribute or connect election with the fall or with sin.

Again, I am arguing against the CALVINIST view of this which I have shown is the logical implications of their stated beliefs in their confessions and theological treatise. You just stated that man's will can not act otherwise then how he was created, and if he is a vessel of dishonor of which he has no choice but to be a vessel of dishonor, by your own admission you can not separate his actions from what he was pre-programmed to act out. If I am a computer that is programmed to produce certain results, and a bug in the system is introduced by my maker, and I produce an erroneous data simulation, it is not MY FAULT for producing what I was PROGRAMMED TO DO.

You can not logically claim that God programmed the sinners will to act any other way than how the sinner is determined to act, and at the same time claim that his actions are free. That is a blatant outright contradiction.

Again, you are ignoring the contextual fact that This vessel was formed by separating it from the FALLEN lump of clay. Time does not change either the source from whence it is being separated from nor the eternal purposes of God.

You are ignoring that fact that this has nothing to do with INDIVIDUALS but the NATION of Israel. There is nothing in Romans 9 that says these vessels were CREATED FALLEN, the context of Romans 9 from Jeremiah is that the vessels were created DIFFERENTLY. Not one iota of Romans 9 supports that anybody was CREATED FOR DESTRUCTION OR HONOR. That is pure eisegesis to suggest otherwise.

You are confusing two different contexts about two different subjects. The former context has to do with the actual forming of the vessel while the latter speaks of the use after already having been formed. Again, the usage of "dishonor" cannot be attributed to God as that is found in the nature of the lump prior to forming and using which is a FALLEN condition. Hence, God cannot be held responsible for either their fallen condition or their choice in a fallen condition that results in "dishonor."

No, you are taking Romans 9 out of its context from Jeremiah from whence Paul is using this reference. All of the other references in Timothy are commensurate with Paul's usage of the term in Romans 9 from which he relied on Jeremiah for its context.

And again, you clearly ignored how Jeremiah showed these vessels BECAME THE VESSELS THAT THEY WERE, and HOW TO AVOID IT-by OBEDIENCE.

Again, you are conflicting a NATIONAL application with a PERSONAL application. Paul is not speaking about NATIONS in Romans 9:20-23 as verse 24 demonstrates very clearly:

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Furthermore, a nation can turn from their evil but that does not mean the nation experiences SPIRITUAL salvation of all its citizens so your analogy breaks down. However, the gifts and callings of God in regard to salvation is "without repentance."

Paul is neither quoting the whole context of Jeremiah or using the specific application by Jeremiah. He is borrowing this story to illustrate a different point than used by jeremiah.

It IS about nations: ROMANS 9:

"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh v3.

Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

Notice that Paul is arguing that just because someone was born from SARAH-which would be HAGAR-doesn't mean they are all JACOB just because they are FROM (born of)JACOB, viz ISRAEL.

Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

And to what does Paul make this comparison? To Jacob and Esau v13, of whom were TWO NATIONS described in Genesis 25:23. And Paul is then comparing the NATION of Israel, to the GENTILES AS A WHOLE. v24-27

Furthermore starting in chapter 10:

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved."

Then beginning in chapter 11:

" I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,"

Who were "God's people" in verse 1? Gentiles? the church?? NO! Paul clarifies with "FOR" "I also am an ISRAELITE".

Was it the church that Paul said God hath not CAST AWAY? Who was it that Paul said God did not cast away...DRUMROLL.....I-S-R-A-E-L.

In verse 28 Paul writes:

" As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes."

The GOSPEL are those under the church age. 1 Cor 15:1-7. What election is Paul talking about? You see there is a DIFFERENCE in those under the GOSPEL from the ELECTION. As an example of what election Paul is referring to, Paul alludes to the OT where a REMNANT of JEWS were select OUT OF A GROUP OF JEWS. The group was Jewish and the REMNANT WAS JEWISH. The REMNANT is OUT OF ISRAEL described back in 9:27 "Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:"

That REMNANT called THE ELECTION shows up in Revelation 7:4-8 as a distinctly JEWISH ELECT and of which if further distinguish by the multitudes of other nations, tongues and peoples already in heaven in Rev 7:9.

The entire context of Romans chapters 9-11 is in answer to the question that since Israel was given the commands, the laws (Romans 3:2-4), of whom Christ came, and they rejected Christ, and are now under a temporary blindness (Rom 11:25-26) is there any FUTURE HOPE FOR THE NATION OF ISRAEL?? And Paul answers YES, there is. THAT is what the ENTIRE CONTEXT is about from start to finish in Romans 9-11. Any attempt to 3 texts out of 3 CHAPTERS of context that clearly show this is about NATIONS is complete eisegesis and blatant scripture twisting.

 

[Inspector Javert]

This is my answer to the scenario. There has been many that question God, why did he destroyed nations of Israel's enemies both woman and children, my only answer is what God chooses to do is always right. If I question God on the above scenario I would have to question God as to why do some Christians live in bodily pain all their life or why do some Christians lose their children to diseases and different things. Who said that life is fair ? Who said that life is supposed to be all fun and games ? The young and the vain person might believe God owes them fame and fortune but the wise know that it is not so.

I essentially agree (with possibly some minor tweeking) with exactly what you said here, but that's really not the point of the O.P. I am not concerned with whether this is "fair" or "just" or whether the damned receive their just rewards. My concern is simply this question:

Do you maintain that God, in a meaningful sense LOVED this person. Would you say that "rain" fell upon this "unjust" person?

If (given Calvinism) you simply said: "No, not really"...then I would agree with that.
If you say that "Yes" God truly "loved" this person in a very real and meaningful way, how do you explain it?

 

[kyredneck]

........The entire context of Romans chapters 9-11 is in answer to the question that since Israel was given the commands, the laws (Romans 3:2-4), of whom Christ came, and they rejected Christ, and are now under a temporary blindness (Rom 11:25-26) is there any FUTURE HOPE FOR THE NATION OF ISRAEL?? And Paul answers YES, there is. THAT is what the ENTIRE CONTEXT is about from start to finish in Romans 9-11. Any attempt to 3 texts out of 3 CHAPTERS of context that clearly show this is about NATIONS is complete eisegesis and blatant scripture twisting.

You've tried this phony baloney stuff before and NEVER gave answer to the scriptural refutation to your false assertion that it's ALL about DNA Israel after the flesh, that simply is NOT so:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2001912#post2001912

Calvinists often gravitate to Romans 9 and interpret it as applying to individual salvation instead of addressing it as Paul addressed to his kinsmen 'ACCORDING TO THE FLESH"-corporate Israel......

????????

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

.............................

It IS pertaining to individual salvation, it pertains to 'us, whom he has called. from Jews AND Gentiles, the REAL Israel of God, the TRUE Jews:

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

..........................................

YOU NEVER ANSWERED!

 

[DrJamesAch]

You've tried this phony baloney stuff before and NEVER gave answer to the scriptural refutation to your false assertion that it's ALL about DNA Israel after the flesh, that simply is NOT so:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2001912#post2001912


????????

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

.............................

It IS pertaining to individual salvation, it pertains to 'us, whom he has called. from Jews AND Gentiles, the REAL Israel of God, the TRUE Jews:

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

..........................................

YOU NEVER ANSWERED!

Read post 112 I have answered this SEVERAL times. You isolate one verse that says "and also of the GENTILES" and fail to see that Romans 9-11 is a comparison of the gospel being given to the Gentiles AS A WHOLE compared to the NATION OF ISRAEL being set aside and then again being "risen from the dead" Roman 11:15

I also gave a very lengthy explanation of the HYPOTHETICAL IF (" What IF God...." 9:22) that Paul proposed about the vessels of Romans 9 in several previous posts here. Here's one of them (sheesh, do I have to respond to these arguments AND dig up my own responses? http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2007678&postcount=96

Anyone that thinks Paul is referring to GENTILES "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" needs their eyes examined.

Furthermore, you ignored that ENTIRE POST.

 

[jbh28]

Fixed your post.

Well, you don't really believe that.

You are correct, it shouldn't happen either way.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Hi, Amy.

How do you explain this scenario as a non-cal?

I am not sure what you mean by "explain" it, other than to say that the bulk of the evils suffered by such individuals are the results of the willful and free and non-caused (and avoidable) choices made by this person, and the surrounding individuals who made life so appalling.

I have trouble explaining it regardless of doctrinal stance on either side. I don't claim to know the answer but apparently you do. So please explain.

My point was not really to get into a discussion of "The Problem of Evil" (so-called) and I think that is what you are talking about. Although that is an interesting question.
My O.P. was designed to draw out what I think to be an existential absurdity to the idea that a consistent Calvinist can reasonably say to the accursed that God "loves" them in a meaningful way.

I get the impression that many people of the Calvinist persuasion seem to perceive the "rain shines on the just and the unjust" thing as suggesting that sinners generally live lascivious (but admittedly pleasurable) lives as Hugh Hefner being billionaire playboys, and enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season.

Arguably.....these people have their reward. But most of the non-elect don't live that way at all. Life itself has been little more than appalling for a GREAT MANY people (perhaps the majority) throughout much of Earth's history. So this "rain" isn't something which can reasonably be called "love"...nor their lives particularly enjoyable. Their ETERNAL DESTINY is a (quite literal) HELL, and God had no intention of saving that person from that Eternity whatsoever. I would argue that if God "loved" these sinners, than if he had no intention of saving them, then it might have been rather more sporting simply to never have created them in the first place.
As an Arminian....I maintain that these tragic scenarios are NOT God's plan for these people's lives, and that he truly desires their eternal salvation. Given the prospect of Eternal heavenly Bliss, the sufferings of this present world are trifling, thus, these pains suffered by these wretched masses are not troubling in the grand scheme of things.

However, according to a Calvinist model, there was no intention on God's part to even offer a realistic possibility of salvation. There was nothing occurring in my scenario that God didn't fundamentally approve of, and their eternal destiny one God intended to be of Hell-fire from the very beginning.

It's not really something to "Answer" as much as me asking that given this (realistic) scenario....would you say (if you are a Calvinist) that God "LOVES" this person?

 

[jbh28]

I disagree that God could have made people without the ability to sin.

Are you sure, but if that's true, then you don't believe God is omnipotent or sovereign. If could doesn't have power over sin and couldn't have created a sin free world. Not to mention what assurance do we have that heaven will be free from sin if God can't do that.

Jesus said sin is necessary.

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Jesus said that it "must needs be that offences come", so sin is necessary, even for God. Why? I believe God is a God of love who does not force anyone to love him, but must allow all men to either choose to love him or hate him consistent with his nature. This makes the possibility of sin unavoidable and necessary.

So I believe your view is error.

Needs to happen for something doesn't equal that God couldn't have done something. I do agree with your point that for A to happen, B(sin) needed to happen. And though God doesn't want us to sin, B(sin) was necessary for A.

And your view does make God appear to be a liar. God repeatedly tells all men it is his desire they stop sinning, all the while knowing the non elect are born with a sin nature imposed on them without choice by God's own decree that compels them to sin, and yet God does not regenerate them to enable them to stop sinning, which God knows is the only way they CAN stop sinning in your view.

God's desire is for us to not sin, that is true. but you already answered your own question above. It doesn't make God a liar at all.

So God says he desires them to stop sinning, but God chooses not to enable them to stop sinning, proving that God does not desire that they stop sinning.

No, God does desire that we be holy(He tells us that) but as you have already said, God had something else that he wanted, so therefore was necessary to allow man to not obey His precepts.

And God having two opposing wills is nonsensical. If God has one will that desires men to not sin, and another will that desires men to sin, then God is very confused and opposed to his own self. Jesus refuted this view in scripture.

No, and you already said the opposite of this. We all have competing desires. It's not "nonsensical" at all. God wants man to be holy, but allows man to not be holy. So either God is powerless over sin(which is not true) or God allows man to sin for another reason.

you contradicted your self.

1. God wants man to be holy. I Peter 1:16
2. All men sin
3. God has power over sin
And even you admitted....This makes the possibility of sin unavoidable and necessary.

 

[kyredneck]

...Anyone that thinks Paul is referring to GENTILES "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" needs their eyes examined....

24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? Ro 9

No, anyone that thinks Paul is referring to ISRAEL ONY "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" needs their eyes examined.

 

[Aaron]

You are making this about justice, and it's not. "Justice" is not the point................and, just to keep you from defaulting to them, I'm not asking about Omnipotence or Sovereignty either.

God posesses more attributes than Justice and Sovereignty (TRUE STORY!!).
I am asking about his LOVE!! I am beginning to believe that that is a particular attribute that you don't care to discuss.

I would be curious to know (the O.P. is clear on it) whether you would argue that God "loves" this woman....not whether he is just in condemning her.

I'll concede any point about justice you want for the time being, if you would be willing to mention his Love (as per the O.P.)

That statement comes in a Calvin-labeled tuna-can.....I'm not asking about God's justice...you're just defaulting to it because it seems to be the only attribute you care anything about. No-one is "judging" God. That isn't even the point of the O.P. I'm talking about God's LOVE. Do you even know how to differentiate?
Why not answer the question?

DO YOU MAINTAIN THAT GOD "LOVES" the non-elect in any normative or meaningful sense?
A yes or no would do to start with:
See Pink (a smart Calvie)....he just said "NO". <---I can dig that.

Blah, blah, blah. You're windier than a bag of farts.

You asked if she received "rain." Did she get food? God provided it. Did she get drink? God provided it. Did she get shelter? God provided it. Did she get clothes? God provided them.

Did she deserve them? No. Was she thankful for them? You don't say. Considering she deserves dry, raging thirst and naked skin on glowing coals, what other motivation was there that she received good things from the Father of lights? Mercy.

That's love. Not the love of a Father, but the love of a Creator for His creation. Are you now going to try to say that isn't normative?

Go belch your subterfuge somewhere else.