God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Ryft]

God is evil merely by making election unconditional and only selecting a few.

An assertion is not an argument. If that is a conclusion, then where is the argument which produces it?

It is still ultimately not the person's fault, but God's.

Another bald assertion—and one that flies in the face of everything I have said thus far, so let us take a look at the argument which produces it. I would like to see that your argument (assuming there is one) has properly taken into account and treated fairly everything that I have said thus far.

Okay, let us say that Bob is at the judgement seat . . . He was never one of God's elect. . . . [snip dialogue]

As entertaining as that dialogue might be, what part of it correlates to the view I have been defending?

God: I never knew you. You shall be cast in the lake of fire. <--- My view has a clause in that sentence which is conveniently missing from your caricature.
Bob: Objection, your honor. <--- Given what you know of my view, how does this response from Bob arise?
God: Make it quick. I got a harp concert to attend in an hour. <--- Gratuitous and offensive satire. Cue laugh track and let us move on to rational discourse.
Bob: Why does Larry over there get to go into your heavenly kingdom, while I get to roast for eternity? <--- Given what you know of my view, how does this response from Bob arise?

And so forth. Please justify that satrical dialogue as being legitimately and fairly produced from the view I have been defending. Keep in mind that claims you make about my view (e.g., "This part arises from your view that X.") should be cited, if not quoted, so that we can see whether or not you have interacted with or represented my view accurately.

So, basically, it sucks to be them. They just were not chosen and that is too bad. I'm sorry if I sound sarcastic and incredulous, but the God you paint, whether you realize it or not, comes off as being incredibly evil. I don't care what his unknown reasons might be; the fact that he unconditionally condemns peoples makes him guilty.

Where in anything I have written do you find this incoherent belief that God "unconditionally condemns" people?

I am not sure how this distinction is meaningful. ["Being of the non-elect is why they do not go to heaven. It is not why they go to hell."]

Since I already did explain how the distinction is meaningful—not only in that very post but previous ones too—perhaps you could describe in what way it is not meaningful (while demonstrably taking into account what I have already said on the matter).

Is there some other place they [the non-elect] could have gone? Can non-elect people go somewhere else other than hell?

No.

What difference does it make to say that [the] non-elect only go to hell because of their sins, when the elect are just as sinful?

Did I neglect to mention and explain the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on behalf of the elect? Tegh, you know very well that I explained that—and in considerable detail, too. So why are you not interacting with my direct answers to these things?

This does not take the blame away from God, because if God had chosen them, they would not be condemned to hell. So your distinction hardly makes a distinction.

Okay, you believe that the reason they are in hell is because they are not part of the elect. Great. People can, of course, believe whatever they like. But what does that have to do with the view I have been defending? Why are you drawing conclusions about my view from what you believe?

Oh, wait, that is not something you believe? All right: (1) Then who believes that? (2) And why are you drawing conclusions about my view from what someone else believes? It is certainly not drawn from what I believe, since I have repeatedly, explicitly, and directly repudiated the belief that they are in hell because they are not part of the elect—not only in that very post, Tegh, but previous ones too.

No, I am not contradicting myself.

Except for the fact that you are. Maybe someone who is part of the elect will hear the gospel and ultimately end up in heaven even though you did not share it with them, but how does that make sharing the gospel in and of itself pointless? Go back and look at what the word "pointless" means, then review how you accepted that, on my view, every single elect person will hear the gospel one way or another (because it is the means by which God reaches his elect with his saving grace). Given what the word means, and what my view states, sharing the gospel in and of itself is not pointless; it has a purpose and is efficacious with respect to those whom God is saving, whether or not you happen to share it with anyone or not.

I am saying that each individual act of witnessing is pointless because, if I do not witness, it is true that someone [else will] . . .

If eventually someone else will, then how is "each individual act" of witnessing pointless? Apparently it was not, since through his witnessing some elect person was saved.

---

---

Very, very few things are clearly and explicitly stated in the Word—and predestination of the elect is not one of them. We could trade prooftexts all day long to support our respective positions . . .

1. Predestination and election both are clearly and explicitly stated in God's word.

2. While you might trade proof-texts, I do not. I present exegetical arguments, (1) supporting my view, (2) undercutting or defeating my opponent's view, and (3) answering my opponent's exegetical argument (assuming he or she presents one).

3. What you happen to find absurd is not exactly relevant (beyond its autobiographical value).

Then don't. The forum has an ignore button for a reason.

It also has rules, which unprovoked insults violate.