Romans 9 doesn't prove Calvinism; it proves the oppositie

[Reformed1689]

So I do not agree with you and I am all of a sudden a humanist.

lol. This takes us full circle to my first post to you. You can't refute what I say, so you mock and make comments which have no bearing on our conversation.

I love what the word says. Just because I do not agree with you means I am wrong.. You should practice what you preach my friend..

Your a fatalist. And thats wrong. There. Two can play that game. but where did it get us?

SMH

I called you humanist because you exemplify humanistic thought and philosophy. I have THOROUGHLY refuted your comments. Not Willing That Any Should Perish? You just don't like the truth of context and how that works. Or you can't grasp it, I don't know which. You are not wrong because you disagree with me, you are wrong because you are wrong. And no, I'm not a fatalist and I don't think you understand what true fatalism is and what true Calvinism is. They are not the same thing.

 

[AustinC]

No not really.

If fatalism is true. Salvation is already set in stone.

If God is Sovereign and all the verses expressing God's sovereign choice is true (by the way I posted a 6 page list and I will add it here for you) then salvation is set in stone.
Fatalism is an atheist concept of an unthinking, uncaring natural law that cannot be changed. Do you think our Sovereign King is unthinking and uncaring when, under no obligation, He willfully chose to save some wretched sinners, but not all?

 

[Revmitchell]

No it is out of context because it is out of context.

so would you mind setting up the context and why you believe your view of that is true?

 

[Guido]

Instead of insisting that verses are being taken out of context, why don't Calvinists interpret the passages being quoted?

 

[Reformed1689]

so would you mind setting up the context and why you believe your view of that is true?

This is the lament of Jerusalem and a rebuke of the leaders of Jerusalem who have not taken care of their children.

 

[Reformed1689]

Instead of insisting that verses are being taken out of context, why don't Calvinists interpret the passages being quoted?

Many times we do, and it gets exhausting exegeting the exact same passages over and over again for people who refuse to listen.

 

[AustinC]

Many times we do, and it gets exhausting exegeting the exact same passages over and over again for people who refuse to listen.

Agreed. I would guess I have exegeted 2 Peter 3 a handful of times here at the BB. The context of Peter's discussion about false teachers and God's judgment in the Day of the Lord just gets ignored by people who couldn't care less about Peter's argument and just want the sentence in verse 9 to mean what they want it to mean.
It is so tiring to keep correcting something that wouldn't need correction if people would only read the entire letter of 2 Peter as a whole.

 

[Reformed1689]

Agreed. I would guess I have exegeted 2 Peter 3 a handful of times here at the BB. The context of Peter's discussion about false teachers and God's judgment in the Day of the Lord just gets ignored by people who couldn't care less about Peter's argument and just want the sentence in verse 9 to mean what they want it to mean.
It is so tiring to keep correcting something that wouldn't need correction if people would only read the entire letter of 2 Peter as a whole.

People are lazy doctrinally and want to believe whatever is told them and "feels good" which is humanistic in philosophy. Unfortunately God's ways are not our ways and the sooner they recognize that the better. It doesn't matter what our view of fair or just is, what matters is what God says on the matter.

 

[Revmitchell]

Many times we do, and it gets exhausting exegeting the exact same passages over and over again for people who refuse to listen.

But you are engaged in this thread. If you are tired of doing that why take part?

 

[Reformed1689]

But you are engaged in this thread. If you are tired of doing that why take part?

Maybe I assume the other side will quit being so stinking lazy.

 

[Revmitchell]

Maybe I assume the other side will quit being so stinking lazy.

No doubt, but I think we can all be lazy at times. However, if we assert something as truth then we should be willing to give a detailed explanation why. Shouldn't we?

 

[Reformed1689]

No doubt, but I think we can all be lazy at times. However, if we assert something as truth then we should be willing to give a detailed explanation why. Shouldn't we?

I am, and, as you know, when you asked for elaboration, I gave it. See how that works?

 

[Revmitchell]

I am, and, as you know, when you asked for elaboration, I gave it. See how that works?

Brother I think the world of you but your answer was weak and incomplete.

 

[Reformed1689]

Brother I think the world of you but your answer was weak and incomplete.

That's fair. The passage quoted literally has nothing to do with the topic. It was a continuation of Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders.

 

[Silverhair]

You have a very weak view of God.

Calvinists say God can only be sovereign if He controls all things but then deny He controls all things. That seems like you have a deficient view of God.

 

[Silverhair]

I'm convinced you don't know the meaning of the word context. I wrote a whole post showing why you were wrong about what Calvinists claim. Yet, rather than deal with what was written, the broken record player plays again and claims something I did not claim.

What most calvinist claim is calvinism and what you try to show calvinism is seem to be two different things. Example you claim that all could come to Christ Jesus but they just do not want to. But your theology shows that is untrue. look at your tulip, it excludes all those that are not "selected" as per the calvinist view of salvation.

 

[Silverhair]

Seeing as how nobody seeks God. He has to violate what you call free will (which is not reality) to bring His will to pass. And he does bring his will to pass in spite of our desire to not seek Him.

And you ignore any scripture that does not fit into your calvinist view.

 

[Silverhair]

First, really poor job regarding Esau and Jacob. Paul is not talking about nations, but about those two children specifically. The context is clear.
Second, no one is deserving of God's choosing them. Because God chooses to extend grace to one, this does not make God unfair to the other. If you want fairness, then prepare for all humanity to burn in hell. You want fatalism, try comprehending a fair God who extends no mercy or grace, just fairness.

It is God, choosing to be merciful when no mercy should be given. God chose to extend mercy to Jacob, not Esau. This is God's Sovereign right. It is the exact opposite of some morbid fatalism you have contrived in your brain. It is an incomprehensible act of mercy and grace to one who doesn't deserve any of which he receives.

It boggles my mind how the free will proponents actually see humanity as somehow good enough that God should just love their behavior and be overjoyed that humans, all by their little ole' selves just naturally want to be a slave to God's righteousness. God would, by that sick thinking, have to be an evil God if He didn't just adore those humans who brilliantly chose Him over the pantheon of other gods. All hail the human will!

Such thinking is just perverted, selfish, godlessness that takes away from the holy and sovereign God of highest heaven.

That you think God's Sovereign choice is evil fatalism says much more about your own pride and low view of God than it says about God and His revealed word in scripture. Your thoughts here are just appalling.

It boggles my mind how the determinist proponents actually promote the idea that God should for His own glory consign consign vast numbers of humanity to an eternity in hell for no other reason then He can. God, by that sick thinking, would have to be an evil God if He could have saved all, as was His stated desire, but instead just wanted to glorify Himself more.

Such is the reality of calvinism.

 

[Reformed1689]

And you ignore any scripture that does not fit into your calvinist view.

Name one,

 

[Reformed1689]

What most calvinist claim is calvinism and what you try to show calvinism is seem to be two different things. Example you claim that all could come to Christ Jesus but they just do not want to. But your theology shows that is untrue. look at your tulip, it excludes all those that are not "selected" as per the calvinist view of salvation.

Could as in have the option. I said nothing of ability.