Why would God say: "I Have Hated Esau..."?

[johnp.]

Hello Me4Him.

Why do I have to "Hate" my "Mother/Father" to be a "Christians""??

Because God said you are to love Him with your whole being not part of it.
Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. What's left? But what has a command to us got to do with how God deals with Esau?

Lu 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

What's it say? Hate your parents like I hate Esau? Of course most of us will love our parents but if they stand in your way of obeying Christ then love for them fails because we must obey Christ or love fails. Love never fails.

Are "YOU" willing to "ADMIT" that there might be something "WRONG" with your interpretation/application of the word "Hate" within context of scripture???

I'll consider it when Hell freezes over or a worthy opponent gets me back against the ropes. Are you willing to admit to context in scripture? HaHa!

It amounts to hate when you do not love. Love is to do good for another and to honour your mother and father is the command, obeying God brings them more honour than any obedience towards them ever can if that means neglecting God.
Going the extra mile is called for but not against scripture. If a thing is wrong then we are not to obey our mother or father. Love is obedience and if we are called not to be obedient to our parents then that is hate towards them. You cannot serve two masters.
God is Sovereign. He is not under the law given to us. You equate 'hate your parents' with the way God hates Esau. Why? Did God have to decide between the two? Why did God have to decide between the two? What does the scripture say? in order that God's purpose in election might stand That's why isn't it? What did He have to decide? What conflict of interest could there have been because He chose them before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad So what conflict of interest was there? None. Was God put into the position of obeying His God or obeying His Parents? What are you talking about?

Our hate, which God calls for, carries no wrath with it but many prayers I should imagine, are you saying God's hate carries no wrath with it? In your dreams.

I see no reason why you will not answer a question Sorry, all you've given is "your opinion", no scripture. Man? I thought we were to explain our beliefs so others can understand what we say and come to Christ by them. If you are right then you are withholding life from us. Our blood will be on your head if you are right. Ha!Ha! 'if'


john.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Scott J:
What possible answer could a calvinist give that would destroy its teachings? That's absurd.

Is it???

Is it possible for a "researcher" to start out believing one thing and finish believing the opposite??

Most "Christians" prefer to let someone else do the "research" and tell them what to believe, rather than doing the research themselves,

People like to "picks out" what they want to believe, Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, whatever, and their "Choice" blinds them to any doctine that contradicts their doctrine,

Their "Faith" is placed in man's book/opinions written about the Bible rather than a "Relationship" with God through the "Spirit" as they read/study "God's word". (bible)

There's no "HONEST", "UNBIAS", "HUMBLE" seeking of the "TRUTH", regardless of where it may lead.

He did it so that His purpose according to election and His own good pleasure might stand to HIS glory... and not man's.

Wouldn't God receive "MORE GLORY" if the "WHOLE WORLD" worshipped him??

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

He created it the way He wanted. Period.

"WHY" do you find it so hard to accept that it wasn't God, or his "WILL", for Adam/Eve to sin, and if Adam/Eve had a "FREE WILL CHOICE" between the "trees" (life/good/evil) that other people don't???

Answer one question, "WHY"...the tree of good/evil on the first earth, but not on the second earth,..."WHY"???

I DID!!!!! Because God chose to make it that way so that His plan might be accomplished.

But you haven't given an "outline" of that plan from the scriptures, that's what I asking.

If you're so sure of Calvin, you should possess the knowledge to answer this question.

I am not sure of "Calvin". I am sure of what the Bible says. Calvinism is simply a term used to describe a point of view concerning interpretation.

I'm being a little "hard on you", but it's to make you "SEE" that blindly believing things you can't prove/explain with scripture is a very "Dangerous" policy, people can/have lost their soul because of it.

Just as you are "FREE" to "CHOSE" which "Denomination" you want to attend,

you're also "FREE" to "CHOSE" which "Doctrine" you want to "believe",

and also "FREE" to "CHOSE" to believe in "God" or be an Atheist.

And for all the above "CHOICES", YOU will be held accountable, not God.

But calvinist denies YOU have these "CHOICES", Do you agree???

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
What possible answer could a calvinist give that would destroy its teachings? That's absurd.

Is it???</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. And you have yet to give a reason why it is not.

Most "Christians" prefer to let someone else do the "research" and tell them what to believe, rather than doing the research themselves,....

Their "Faith" is placed in man's book/opinions written about the Bible rather than a "Relationship" with God through the "Spirit" as they read/study "God's word". (bible)

You still haven't answered how your question "destroys" calvinism.

BTW, the few books and articles I have read on calvinism came after I began to see it in scripture. Yes, they helped. But I knew that the opinion I previously held (similar to yours) was corrupt and couldn't be reconciled to very basic, direct biblical statements.

There's no "HONEST", "UNBIAS", "HUMBLE" seeking of the "TRUTH", regardless of where it may lead.

That's what I said... it was you that preached at me as if you were interpretting infallibly by some special "leading".

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

He did it so that His purpose according to election and His own good pleasure might stand to HIS glory... and not man's.

Wouldn't God receive "MORE GLORY" if the "WHOLE WORLD" worshipped him??</font>[/QUOTE] Quite apparently not.

His justice and righteousness would not be displayed if that were the case.

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Very consistent with God not being the author of sin... but not the same as saying that sin didn't facilitate the plan He had even before man sinned.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

I have never denied a general call of repentance. Have I?

This is very consistent with Romans 1 and 2. All men are responsible to repent and are given enough reason within their conscience and nature to seek Him if they just would... but in their fallen, "dead" sin nature- they WILL not.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> He created it the way He wanted. Period.

"WHY" do you find it so hard to accept that it wasn't God, or his "WILL", for Adam/Eve to sin,</font>[/QUOTE] Because His will before Adam sinned was to send a Redeemer. He "permitted" man to sin... but man's sin facilitated God's perfect will and plan for the ages.

If it had been God's active will to prevent man from sinning... man wouldn't have sinned. Now that man has sinned and "died" spiritually, it takes a direct, divine miracle to resurrect him. I believe that each salvation isn't just a choice or a decision or a mundane matter of fact occurrence. I believe each and every salvation is a resurrection no less miraculous nor within man's ability to cause than physical resurrection.

and if Adam/Eve had a "FREE WILL CHOICE" between the "trees" (life/good/evil) that other people don't???

It isn't either or... it is both. Adam as our representative brought spiritual death to our race. Romans 5 tells us that no one else has sinned after the simulitude of Adam's trangression. But before you spin off into "that's not fair"... Adam perfectly represented us meaning we also would have fallen.

Besides that, each and every person that God will judge consciously chooses the way of Adam. Their nature is to sin but they do it willingly.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Answer one question, "WHY"...the tree of good/evil on the first earth, but not on the second earth,..."WHY"???

I DID!!!!! Because God chose to make it that way so that His plan might be accomplished.

But you haven't given an "outline" of that plan from the scriptures, that's what I asking.</font>[/QUOTE] I will honestly say that if you haven't seen this outline in my posts I am not really sure what you are looking for.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you're so sure of Calvin, you should possess the knowledge to answer this question.

I am not sure of "Calvin". I am sure of what the Bible says. Calvinism is simply a term used to describe a point of view concerning interpretation.

I'm being a little "hard on you", but it's to make you "SEE" that blindly believing things you can't prove/explain with scripture is a very "Dangerous" policy, people can/have lost their soul because of it.</font>[/QUOTE] Yet I am the one pointing to direct, relevant scriptures and promoting scriptural principles.

All you do is evade direct questions and "challenge" me with more questions of your own.

As per the mote and beam... perhaps you should be hard on yourself first. Answer the hard questions. Deal with the scriptures that directly contradict what you claim. Then "challenge" me.

you're also "FREE" to "CHOSE" which "Doctrine" you want to "believe",

I agree. I believe it is a matter of submission.

And for all the above "CHOICES", YOU will be held accountable, not God.

I never said any different... however, if you are saved and make "good" choices you will not be worthy of credit. Why? Because God deserves the credit. Why? Because God did the work within us and will finish it. He willed to conform us to the image of Christ. (Romans 8)

But calvinist denies YOU have these "CHOICES", Do you agree???

No. I don't. This as blatantly as anything you have posted demonstrates that you don't know what we, and particularly, I believe.

Adam sinned as our representative and personally.

Each of his descendents was born with a dead, sin nature that wills to rebel, predisposed to self-worship, and enemies of God. Carnal men, like any other creature, behave according to their nature. They don't "will" to change that nature... and that nature is evil.

God before time began foresaw this and allowed it that His glory might be displayed.

He sent Christ to die for sin. His sacrifice as an infinite person is fully sufficient not only for the sins that will be committed but any sin that might have been committed. However it is only "efficient" for the elect... and God knew who they were and predestined them to regeneration.

According to His good pleasure, God spiritually resurrects or regenerates those who He has divinely chosen so that His plan might be accomplished. He changes their nature and everything else precipitates from that miracle. No man deserves it. All are guilty. He has done no injustice to those who have willfully chosen rebellion and to whom He has graciously offered forgiveness... but they will not.

Before you cry "unjust" or "unfair" consider Christ. Did He heal every person? Did He raise every dead person? Did He walk on the water in front of everyone? Did He equally preach and teach the gospel to everyone? The obvious answer to each question is "no". He did specifically that which would bring ultimate glory to God. He did not force the Jews to reject and kill Him. But it facilitated the plan. Those men were guilty... and their guilt judged by God Himself will bring glory to God for being a righteous, holy judge.

 

[Scott J]

BTW, ME, you still haven't given direct answers to the questions I posed. Why? What are you so afraid of?

You have accused me of not being Spirit led on this and of taking my beliefs from the opinions of other men rather than scripture. Yet you won't answer these questions that might lead you to a real evaluation of what you have swallowed.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Scott J: Sal, Nothing you have said in any of the posts I have read comes close to proving calvinism false.

Really now? So you believe all the elect are holy before salvation? What would the need for salvation be then "if" the "elect" were holy before salvation???

Talk about an idiom for Homer!!

Calvinism
proves itsself wrong by the very scriptures it tries to prove itsself "right"

"Cart before the horse" syndrome due to the inability to reason because of respect of men and their logic.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Salamander:

The problem Calvinism has is that man was never holy until after election, not elected because of his holiness, neither was any man ever "in Him" before salvation as the means of making any man holy and elect, precious..

The problem with this response is that we are saved now but not holy of ourselves even now. You are attempting vainly to limit God's election to man's perception of time.

Christ's righteousness is imputed to us... and that gift of grace by God was just as real in eternity past as it is right now.

 

[johnp.]

So you believe all the elect are holy before salvation?

Hello Salamander. Set apart from eternity we were. Loved from eternity. I was bound over to sin by God so He could have mercy on me. He bound over the rest so He could demonstrate His wrath as per scripture.

What would the need for salvation be then "if" the "elect" were holy before salvation???

Without sin God could not show us mercy could He? Holy is to be set apart why don't you use words correctly but why do you bend them into something they do not mean? Do you think we are holy after salvation? Yes without blemish through Him who gave me life. It is because of God that I am in Christ Jesus. 1 Cor 1:30. Where are you and who got you there?

Talk about an idiom for Homer!!

Is that the Greek one or the one who lives in Springfield? If it is the one in Springfield then I'd readily agree that he is a role model for me. There is more than an affinity. But to compare any Calvinist with a man who occasionally calls on the name of Jebus is just silly, irrelevant and a cause of concern that you do not understand what you boast of. Are you also one that knows so much about a thing without study? Another touchy feelie one who accepts contradiction rather than a Sovereign God? Where did you learn your theology please.

"Cart before the horse" syndrome due to the inability to reason because of respect of men and their logic.

God before man. Don't you like logic? I can see you do not use it but do you think it not a gift of God? Tell me where this 'inability to reason' comes from. It doesn't come from knowledge of the subject does it? Yes? No? Show us our error stop just telling us we are in error.

I am not ashamed I have the greatest respect for Calvin and the other reformers. My teachers are my brothers and are dear to me. How would you like it if I called your mum or dad or brother or sister? Not that I hold it against you but it is just not fitting that a Christian should call men while at the same time saying they are obeying the command to love all men because that would be hypocrisy on show isn't it?

john.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:

The problem Calvinism has is that man was never holy until after election, not elected because of his holiness, neither was any man ever "in Him" before salvation as the means of making any man holy and elect, precious..

The problem with this response is that we are saved now but not holy of ourselves even now. You are attempting vainly to limit God's election to man's perception of time.

Christ's righteousness is imputed to us... and that gift of grace by God was just as real in eternity past as it is right now. </font>[/QUOTE]oH, NO, FRIEND,AS FAR AS ETERNITY GOES, I WASN'T HOLY BEFORE I WAS MADE HOLY. I was a sinner before i was made righteous by the Divine act of the Soveriegn God by and through His Precious Son who imputed righteousness to me when I cried out for His mercy as that sinner.

God doesn't impute sin, but to believe Calvinism, one would have to attribute God with doing so for all the un-elect.

You greatly err, friend, greatly err.

 

[Salamander]

It maybe that you should re-read, "But Esau I have hated"? The statement, the inspired statement, says that to "have hated" there had to be a "I once loved" Esau, and because of Esau's choice to sell his birthright to Jacob, which was the subplanter from his birth, was a very wicked thing for him to do. God is angry with the wicked. God was angry with Esau. God is no longer angry and hates Esau. The verb is past perfect.

You would have an arguement if the Bible said "Esau have I hated and will still hate him" or, "I hate Esau", but it DOESN'T!

 

[Salamander]

I am not ashamed I have the greatest respect for Calvin and the other reformers. My teachers are my brothers and are dear to me. How would you like it if I called your mum or dad or brother or sister? Not that I hold it against you but it is just not fitting that a Christian should call men while at the same time saying they are obeying the command to love all men because that would be hypocrisy on show isn't it?

To show men their error is neither hypocritical, nor is it not loving.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Salamander:
You would have an arguement if the Bible said "Esau have I hated and will still hate him" or, "I hate Esau", but it DOESN'T!

The second coming must be near. I agree with Salamander 100%. The fact that God hated Esau at one specific instance and example does not mean that God withholds his love from him as a whole. Neither does He from anyone.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Salamander.

I was a sinner before i was made righteous...

I was a sinner set apart were you? Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Rom 9:21. No you say.

God doesn't impute sin, but to believe Calvinism, one would have to attribute God with doing so for all the un-elect.

What are you saying we don't have original sin? We are imputed with Adams sin and condemned for it. Err greatly? RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men...
Why don't you read the bible? If God doesn't imput sin then scripture errs not us because scripture says we die because Adam took what did not belong to him, choice.

It maybe that you should re-read...

Try the bit that says 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

You would have an arguement if the Bible said "Esau have I hated and will still hate him" or, "I hate Esau", but it DOESN'T!

Yea cool man didn't you hear what He did with Esau and his tribe?

...past perfect...

What's that mean but Esau I loved? Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Just as it is written:
Just as it is written:
Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Try another line that one has no hook.

To show men their error is neither hypocritical, nor is it not loving.

Not so with you. I have yet to be corrected with any scripture all I've seen is an inane comment about Homer. That's as close to scripture as you come much like the man himself.

The second coming must be near. I agree with Salamander 100%. The fact that God hated Esau at one specific instance and example does not mean that God withholds his love from him as a whole. Neither does He from anyone.

It is Johnv. Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." The darkness decends when that becomes: Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, and Esau I loved."

ISA 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

MAL 1:2 "I have loved you," says the LORD.
"But you ask, `How have you loved us?'
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."

MAL 1:4 Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins."
But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, `Great is the LORD--even beyond the borders of Israel!'


john.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Salamander:
You would have an arguement if the Bible said "Esau have I hated and will still hate him" or, "I hate Esau", but it DOESN'T!

The second coming must be near. I agree with Salamander 100%. The fact that God hated Esau at one specific instance and example does not mean that God withholds his love from him as a whole. Neither does He from anyone. </font>[/QUOTE]Even so come Lord Jesus! There is hope!

 

[Salamander]

I was a sinner set apart were you? Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Rom 9:21. No you say.

Glad you brought that up! Now tell me, was the clay in the mire and still in the Potter's hands?

What are you saying we don't have original sin? We are imputed with Adams sin and condemned for it. Err greatly?

Yes, you err greatly. God does not impute sin, to believe God does means he creates men to do nothing but one thing, DESTROY them all. Besides, read your Bible, it never says God imputes sin, it specifically states the "God does not impute sin". The Bible also tells us that God imputes/ awards righteousness, to all who will receive Jesus. Receiving is emphatically by choice once the gift has been offered to every man who God would have to be saved, not that all men "WILL" be saved, so rant on!

Try the bit that says 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

LOL, you just used the very Scripture that refutes Calvinism! God created them both equal. In His Omniscience, God forsaw what would happen. To believe what you're trying to say by that verse would make God a tyrant and unjust that He would even allow Esau to be born! Election occurs by the conscience choice to believe God sent His Son to die as the Propitiation for all men, Esau chose to sell out for the flesh, you cannot change Scripture to say anything else, though you might still try.

What's that mean but Esau I loved? Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Just as it is written:
Just as it is written:
Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Try another line that one has no hook.

Why not try reading the Bible? Instead you quote something a commentator tried to say the Bible says. Maybe Greek isn't your language? the tense of the verb demands the past perfect participle "have" as the helping verb.

Not so with you. I have yet to be corrected with any scripture all I've seen is an inane comment about Homer. That's as close to scripture as you come much like the man himself.

My, what an awfully judgemental accusation that I don't equate telling the truth with love for those who believe error?

So? Now that you've made your best "arguement", and since all Ishmaelites are the Arab nations predominately muslim, are you trying to say that no muslims can be saved? I do understand the land of Edom is a wastelend, "and Edom have I utterly destroyed", but don't you belive there are still the descendents of Esau, spiritually, that sell their birthrights for satisfaction of the flesh? Yes, daily.

You're arguing from only a physical standpoint with no regard for the spiritual aspect, even though your physical arguement has many holes in it.

My God is not preselective, but He has predestinated all men to be conformed to the image of His Son, but by choice leaning towards his flesh, and diametrically opposed to the Spirit, God does allow men created in His image to make a conscience choice in how he responds to the call of election/ salvation. (You cannot differentiate the two without making them opposed one to the other, that is heresy!)

Election and Salvation are synonomous.

Can you consciously deny or approve of anything, namedly the discussion, beyond a conscious choice? NO! Unless you're operating in an unconscious state.

 

[Timtoolman]

Let me get this right JohnP we are to hate our parents?! It doesn't mean love less or put God first in our hearts, but tells us we are too hate, lack of love, our parents?
JohnP I will say this... you are the first honest calvinist I have met. YOu conclude that we are to hate our parents, that God is the cause for sin and that we are all robots. That is the honest ultimate conclusion for calvinism. YOu are a great example. This is were all calvinism would lead. I commend you.... however that does not mean I agree with you.


And Scott you agree with this man?!

JohnP you might want to consider Matt 10:37 here God says he who loves mother or father, son or daugher more then me.....
Now what is God saying we are to love HIm and HATE others or we are to put him first and love Him the most? It is clear that God loved Esua less, rather you believe it or not.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Tim.


I'm in the process of answering the lizard at the mo but I don't think he will mind being destroyed at a later date.

What can I do for you Timmy tool man?

Let me get this right JohnP...

Why? It will be a first that you want to get it right but just in case you do...

we are to hate our parents?!

Jesus said: MT 6:24 "No one can serve two masters...

Do you?

It doesn't mean love less or put God first in our hearts, but tells us we are too hate, lack of love, our parents?

Shocking ain't it? That's God you know? He thinks He's the bees knees. HaHa! You must forgive my Father, He gets carried away sometimes with His own glory. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. What's left?

JohnP I will say this you are the first honest calvinist I have met.

I appreciate the compliment but I reject your offer. I'd rather be locked away with Scot than any of the opposition even though I am a socialist union man.

You conclude that we are to hate our parents, that God is the cause for sin and that we are all robots.

I thank you representing my views correctly. I do. A first.

That is the honest ultimate conclusion for calvinism.

It is. But I would be careful of 'honest' as it is the Lord's purpose. A man can be honest and wrong.

You are a great example.

To Calvin but not to the Calvinists. I'm as much an heretic to them as I am to you. Which means I'm never short of an argument.

This is were all calvinism should lead.

Apart from the grammar I would say that a Calvinist that does not accept the Sovereignty of God is a shallow man but it is God that makes shallow men as He made you shallower. Honest ok? (I like yer post it's cool. )

I commend you however that does not mean I agree with you.

I take the sentiment and thank you, kind words fron the enemy are to be viewed with the uttmost caution, HaHa! but commendation comes from God not you. I am approved of Him, that's enough for me. PR 27:6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.

And Scott you agree with this man?!

I shall answer for him. No he does not. But I would rather spend eternity with him than you.

JohnP you might want to consider Matt 10:37 here God says he who loves mother or father, son or daugher more then me.....

Is not worthy. I am not worthy even though I crave Him more than I do mine. Unworthy enen to clean His footwear, or yours. What?

Now what is God saying we are to love HIm and HATE others or we are to put him first and love Him the most?

He doesn't ask us but He commands us to love Him. Love does not involve others except to their exclusion.

It is clear that God loved Esua less, rather you believe it or not.

No that's a lie. He says He hates Esau. Correct this and I will explain to you love and hate. Ask me and I will explain love and hate.

First honest post I've seen from the otherside. Where's the barb? It is uncomfortable being taken out of me groove? Good move. I give you more room from now on.

john.

 

[johnp.]

Night night America God bless you.

john.

 

[Timtoolman]

Thank you John for your answers. Great teaching material! You are either the most holiest man alive or the dumbest. YOu are on your own island. MOst born again christians (non-calvinist) have not fallen for such bad doctrine and theology. Let alone your fellow calvin followers.

The only question you did not answer was why God says to love Him more then others (parents sisters etc in Matt) But then says to hate them in Luke. Maybe you ought to take in the whole council of God's word.


As for this statement:

" But I would rather spend eternity with him than you"

"Apart from the grammar I would say that a Calvinist that does not accept the Sovereignty of God is a shallow man but it is God that makes shallow men as He made you shallower. Honest ok? (I like yer post it's cool. )
"

I thank you. I would that a person with your stance hate me. I would want not one bit of association with a man who is so proud of his error and waddles in it. You are not ignorant. You have been shown the truth, and you have rejected it for a sinful, lunatic god. So again I thank you completely!
You need not worry I doubt I will be in YOUR heaven, too hot for me!

OH yeah!

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by johnp.:
Hello Tim.


I'm in the process of answering the lizard at the mo but I don't think he will mind being destroyed at a later date.

I think you think too much of yourself. Salamander need not say anything to you as you assinate the character of God. Your god is nothing more then satan with more power.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Timtoolman.

You are either the most holiest man alive or the dumbest.

I have the righteousness of Christ as my cover and a Father that looks on me as righteous, holy and blameless (Eph 1:4). I am neither better nor worse than you. I think as to being the dumbest I would not like to claim any false humility, I am not the most dumbest alive.

YOu are on your own island.

This is not a correct statement is it? Why are you trying to portray me as isolated? I am not on my own island many believe as I do as you know only too well, if this is your meaning. I will admit that the island is not overly populated but as Elijah found there are many hidden away and who else considers numbers important or relevant? Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel--all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him." 1 Kings 19:18.

MOst born again christians (non-calvinist) have not fallen for such bad doctrine and theology. Let alone your fellow calvin followers.

You expose yourself with everyword you write. It is polite to call Calvinists Calvin followers? You continue unsubstantiated propaganda at every turn you can as if the ways of the world are a tool for Christians. We are to speak the truth in love and that is a labour of love in itself. Is it love to tell people that hate means love? I see you answer no question put to you as is the wont of your lot. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. What's left?
As to what Calvinists believe or don't believe or most Christians believe or do not believe is not relevant to anything is it? Is it bad doctrine to teach sola scripture and the Sovereignty of God?

I thank you. I would that a person with your stance hate me. I would want not one bit of association with a man who is so proud of his error and waddles in it.

And that is right. On reading my post this morning I did think it harsh and unneccessary in places. For that I apologise unreservedly. That being the only error I waddled in.

That you say my God is nothing more than Satan with more power is a good one. My faith is the faith of the Reformers and Puritans, what's your heritage? Were your founding fathers Satanic since we are of the same faith? I am a Child of God a chosen man and Royal Priest about His God's business.

The only question you did not answer was why God says to love Him more then others (parents sisters etc in Matt) But then says to hate them in Luke. Maybe you ought to take in the whole council of God's word.

It is simple isn't it? Love never fails. If at some point one must choose between doing God's will or another's and the one you choose will be the one you love and the one you do not, love has failed and so therefore was not love because love never fails.

That's the difference with us. I make the effort of answering all points do I not? How often do we see the same courtesy.

As for this statement:

" But I would rather spend eternity with him than you"

I would that a person with your stance hate me.

Your teaching is unscriptural and leads many to Hell why should I hate you? But if it is hate you recognise then that is because you have the these feelings for those that hold to the true doctrines that you do not like. ...you assinate the character of God... No but would you like to assassinate me? I do get the impression.

I think you think too much of yourself.

I know this is so, I'm sure I do. I'm a work in progress as all those chosen are.

If I say I would rather spend eternity with him than you I went a little too far. We will be perfect then but as for now one is guaranteed at least the politenss of a reply to a question.

You are trying to kid me into believing that Esau I hated is meant to express love? MAL 1:4 Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins."
But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, `Great is the LORD--even beyond the borders of Israel!'

Does that say what it says? A wicked people always under wrath because Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

john.