God, come out, come out wherever you are!

[Godscreated]

I believe that free will is essential to Christianity, as essential as God's love is, and I do not think I need to elaborate on His love. If we are not free agents, and I believe God allows us to be, then God's love has no meaning for salvation. If we are not free agents, then why the sacrifice of Christ, God shows His love to us through this. In Christ's own words, "what greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for another". Your position was that God had to strike a balance between the saved and lost, and ultimately God saved those He chose and sent to hell those He did not choose, this is predestination, a determination before the cause. What would qualify this as predetermination, God's foreknowledge, He would have known the ones He would choose and in that choosing leave man completely out of any decision.

Again, the view I expressed is not deterministic. It's a view used by libertarians. I can't help it if comes off sounding deterministic but there's not a better libertarian solution that I know of.

I used this in an argument in another thread, saying your argued that God needed to strike a balance between the people who will be in heaven, and those who will be in hell. This is the solution to the balance (no percentages are necessary) those in heaven+ those in hell= justice.

Foreknowledge is not predetermination. Just because God has foreknowledge of all history, and that history will come to pass, doesn't pose a problem for free will. The individuals in that history are free to make their decision as they see fit. Notice decision is in the singular, one decision that all are free to make, salvation. Outside of salvation it's ultimately up to God, through His will.

Ok, let's assume that everyone has free will. Why does one person with free will freely accept Christ as their savior, and another person freely rejects Christ? What's different about the two people that would result in them making two different free choices?

If I had the answer some might say I could tell the future. Why do people vote differently on the same issues, both sides believe they are right. Experiences would be a guess, here's an example, I raise and show Rottweilers, I believe them to be the complete dog. Many people do not like them because of their undeserved reputation, I know a lot of people who felt this way, when these people became familiar with my Rotties they change their minds, I introduced them to dogs that were not what they had perceived. Their perception was based on what others told them, what they had read in news papers, or seen on TV, when they came to know the reality of this magnificent breed they have come to respect this wonderful breed. So as I said, experience might be the best at determining why people choose the way they do.

Again knowing, determining and whatever has nothing to do with us choosing God or not choosing God, simple really.

You may be right on that. I have to continue to study that point and may return to it.

Take your time, this has been an enjoyable debate with you and I look forward to more on different topics. I know trying to address more than one view on the same topic can become a bit confusing at times.

[Reforged]

Please stop saying things like this because it is a false accusation.

Which part is false? Just because you "feel" Gods presence inside you, which by the way not only sounds like you have a mental illness but could be a symptom of being in the closet for so long, that doesn't translate as God "showing himself". If you think it does then you need to get yourself a dictionary.

You have the Bible in your own language yet you do not believe. Revelation does not guarantee belief. Your ignore free choice.

Do the isolated jungle tribes untouched by human civilization have a choice? What about those who are raised in another religion and never come into contact with your particular brand of insanity? What about people who just have an affinity with reality ingeneral? You're talking out of your rectal cavity my friend.

Really? You were there and know this for a fact? Billions of people today have the Bible in their own language yet they CHOOSE to worship false gods--what is your point?

See previous point. Also using the term "false god" implies yours is true, you have not yet proven this is the case and therefore do not have the right to such brazen arrogance.

What evidence do you have that this is true? Please trot it out. How do you know that some Mayans and other ancient citizens di dnot question their family's belief's? It happens today even in Christian homes so why would the Mayan be any different?

I'm sorry, did you just more or less admit that your religion is as plausible as the previous ones? Wouldn't that significantly downplay the role of God in either religion? If thats not what you meant you should perhaps consider rephrasing that question as thats certainly what your current question implies.

So all those people who were raised in non-christian homes or in cultic enviornments really aren't Christian then since their coinversion was done outside of a christian influence? This is a weak argument that does not stand up to scrutiny.

If thats what you gathered from what he wrote then you clearly either scanned it or do not care and just want your religion to be proven less fraudlent than the others. Suffice to say this will not occur and he was basically saying your religion is exactly the same as any other with negligible differences.

I think you need to re-read your history. The Spanairds were after GOLD not evangelizing the world.

But then your thinking is common where you feel everyone who claims to be a christian is one and that is so far from the truth. Evil people will use religion, but that doesn't mean religion (in this case Christianity) is evil and bad. You just use the generality to provide you with an excuse for not believing in Jesus.

The Bible doesn't teach 'all who claim to be a christian is one' NO it teaches 'by their fruits you shall know them. Obviously, the Spanairds were not christian by the results of their interaction with native peoples.

P.S. you should be terrified of those evil people who use religion for their own gain NOT of God, Jesus or those who truly believe in them.

So you have different variations on your insanity. Congratulations, would you like a cookie? The *reason*, not "excuse" as you so arrogantly put, for so adamantly not believing in your religion inparticular is because its holy book is, and lets be fair to it here, batshit crazy in every sense. It isn't that it can be used for evil that is the problem, its that it practically begs for people to do so in every page. If you'd read the *entire* Bible as myself and a fair few people here have you would understand this, backpeddle and go into apologetics mode.

Then we would continue to debate with you because that shit ain't gonna fly.
Hit me Jay-Z:

[Neo-Scholastic]

The election by God of particular people for redemption is explicitly and clearly stated in the Bible...In other words, election is unconditional.

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 (Deut 30:15, Joshua 24:15, Ez 18:32 for example). I find it absurd that the Lord would call everyone to repentance without also providing everyone the capacity to do so.

Response to the OP's question about "preaching to the heathens.":

If the definition of 'salvation' is limited to saying the PL&S formula to avoid a literal 'lake of fire', then your dilemma for orthodox Christianity is well stated. I agree. However, I take the position that salvation means allowing yourself to being guided by the Lord and learning to recognize what is good/true so that it may be pursued and desiring to do so. That starts an on-going process of regeneration. Thus, salvation is not a one-time choice, but the habit of seeking the Lord and doing his will that begins with repentance in the here and now and extends into the afterlife.

[DeeTee]

Which part is false? Just because you "feel" Gods presence inside you, which by the way not only sounds like you have a mental illness but could be a symptom of being in the closet for so long, that doesn't translate as God "showing himself". If you think it does then you need to get yourself a dictionary.

The insulting tone and words motivate me to ignore your post. I won't report you this time, if that does any good, but if yo want a discussion with me, keep it out of the gutter, out of the realm of insult and talk like an adult with a minimal amount of intelligence.

Do the isolated jungle tribes untouched by human civilization have a choice

Yes but that doesn't mean everything will be done according to your idea of having a choice.

Also using the term "false god" implies yours is true, you have not yet proven this is the case and therefore do not have the right to such brazen arrogance.

There is no implying it is a fact. Proving is subjective and depends upon your acceptance of the evidence and so far all you have shown is contempt and dismissal so proving anything to you is a waste of time.

If thats not what you meant you should perhaps consider rephrasing that question as thats certainly what your current question implies

.

I see you can't produce the evidence but need to avoid meeting that request.

The rest of your post is just not worth attempting to respond to. Your attitude and insulting demeanor just cuts off any sort of discussion that could be had.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The rest of your post is just not worth attempting to respond to.

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

[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.

[Welsh cake]

God cares about everyone, where did you get the idea He doesn't?
God neglects no one, again where did you get the idea He does?

The appalling lack of intervention?

God gives everyone chances, how many only He knows. Even though He knows that a person will not ever accept Christ, out of His love He still gives them an opportunity for salvation, He desires that no one be lost.

What other desires does he have? At what point does he lose the passion or drive to provide opportunities for salvation? There is obviously a cut-off point or deadline in your theology that can be passed by based upon what we do or don't do so what is it?

Our lifespans are hardly a fair opportunity because not all have lived an equal amount of time for example. Many have died in their infancy before ever accommodating belief in a god or gods.

God has the entire universe at His disposal, being that He created the universe He could create whatever He desires.

That's not very encouraging.

Christ is building mansions in heaven, He has one for me, one so magnificent that nothing on earth could ever compare.

I don't like mansions. I don't like wealth or power or status. I despise all of them. I don't like serving people or being served. I prefer to be alone. That's probably why I'm so incompatible with your notions of god and the afterlife in general.

Not exactly a rational conclusion there, an incompetent broad brush that I find embarrassing on your behalf.

Rational isn't the word I would use.

There are so many issues relevant to why there is disagreement about God that your sweeping dismissal conveniently ignores.

I don't find them to be particularly relevant to my life.

It also indefensibly assumes that we all have the same theology, and even the same deity, when it is blatantly clear to any literate person that we simply do not. You just carelessly assume that all Christians are the same, all worship the same God, and all have the same theology, when the evidence to the contrary is stacked heavily against such an incompetent broad brush.

Why don't you all worship the same God?

Is there not a skeptic anywhere in this forum who would call you out on such a dereliction of reason?

And what am I supposed to say to this exactly? Something witty?

Nah. I normally can't be arsed with you Ryft and today is no exception. We just don't see eye-to-eye and never will.

That goes without saying, this however has no bearing on God's love for us. He can and does offer it no matter what one will do. No one can slight God for being just when He has offered His love to all.

Assuming for sake of argument god is real, I can. I don't understand what is being put on offer or why its been put on offer or why there has to be a god or what is a god even.

None of it makes any sense.

God has been and always will be, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Sin is what's wrong with the world, I do not expect you to understand,

Then how can anyone be saved if they don't understand what is going on, what fallen state they're in, what doom awaits them or what is required of them to prevent it?

Please don't say you don't expect us to understand. That's anything but a convincing argument or case for god, sin and what's wrong with the world. All that's asserting is something is not properly understood which is a pointless statement to make.

The difference between the elect and non-elect simply is this, not all that are called will choose Christ, this is Biblical. Matt.22:1-14 is the parable of the wedding feast.

I'm apathetic to weddings and royalty. Being an asexual anti-royalist I can't relate to either of them. This parable has no meaning for me whatsoever. Find another more suitable one please.

On this we agree, God being love would not do this. Everyone has a chance at heaven, even those who never hear the gospel, as I explained earlier in this thread. Actually Christ did die only for those who would choose Him, but all are given that chance to chose Him. God desires that none perish, this to me puts an end to predestination.

Why would I want Heaven?

Why would I want to be with God?

I didn't even want to come into this life or choose to exist yet it happened anyway. What difference does wanting or needing something or someone make?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Predestination and election both are clearly and explicitly stated in God's word.... I present exegetical arguments...What you happen to find absurd is not exactly relevant (beyond its autobiographical value).

You have merely restated your claim that predestination and election are explicitly found in the Word. I pointed out parts of scripture that suggest a different exegisis as follows. God sets before us the paths of life and of death. He then asks us to choose our path. This suggests a real choice, not a forced one. Your stated position is that much of humanity has been created solely for condemnation and for no other purpose than eternal torment. And according to your exegisis, they have no choice in the matter. As such, your position contradicts every call for repentance in the Word, because according to you, the capacity for repentence has been intentionally withheld from the damned by their creator, meaning that God has acted against his own desires. The supposed distinction you presented between passive and active condemnation only disguises God's responsibility for having setting some on a course for destruction (active) and then failing to stop (passive) the outcome he intended and planned. Your interpretation makes God cruel and arbitrary.

[Godscreated]

God cares about everyone, where did you get the idea He doesn't?
God neglects no one, again where did you get the idea He does?

The appalling lack of intervention?

You would not want God to intervene in your life, now would you. What's truly appalling, man's lack of caring for man, God works through man and if mankind doesn't care then how is He to help. We are the ones at fault that the world is the shape it is, and you think God's suppose to intervene, why, it's our mess.

God gives everyone chances, how many only He knows. Even though He knows that a person will not ever accept Christ, out of His love He still gives them an opportunity for salvation, He desires that no one be lost.

What other desires does he have? At what point does he lose the passion or drive to provide opportunities for salvation? There is obviously a cut-off point or deadline in your theology that can be passed by based upon what we do or don't do so what is it?

Why do you assume that God's passion and drive would ever wan. He will withdraw the opportunity in His perfect timing through His fore knowledge.
God desires our love, worship, obedience and ect., those things we can withhold from Him. Outside of the things we withhold from God, I do not know what He would desire since He can create anything He would want.

Our lifespans are hardly a fair opportunity because not all have lived an equal amount of time for example. Many have died in their infancy before ever accommodating belief in a god or gods.

Some people can make a decision quicker than others, your statement is not relevant about the amount of time, also God's foreknowledge comes into the equation. For those that die very young, well there destination is heaven.

Christ is building mansions in heaven, He has one for me, one so magnificent that nothing on earth could ever compare.

I don't like mansions. I don't like wealth or power or status. I despise all of them. I don't like serving people or being served. I prefer to be alone. That's probably why I'm so incompatible with your notions of god and the afterlife in general.

All those things you mentioned have nothing to do with you being incompatible with my beliefs in God or eternity, more than likely it's because of your lack of self esteem.

That goes without saying, this however has no bearing on God's love for us. He can and does offer it no matter what one will do. No one can slight God for being just when He has offered His love to all.

Assuming for sake of argument god is real, I can. I don't understand what is being put on offer or why its been put on offer or why there has to be a god or what is a god even.None of it makes any sense.

I'm sorry it makes no sense to you, I really wish it did.
God is because He has always been, do not expect a better answer than this from me, my mind can not conceive such vastness.
Salvation from sin and whatever makes you have an attitude where you don't care. From our other discussions it seems to me that you care very little, I hope I'm wrong in my thinking and I certainly do not mean it in a demeaning way. God offers all salvation because He loves us all and it pleases Him when one accepts.

God has been and always will be, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Sin is what's wrong with the world, I do not expect you to understand,

Then how can anyone be saved if they don't understand what is going on, what fallen state they're in, what doom awaits them or what is required of them to prevent it?

Please don't say you don't expect us to understand. That's anything but a convincing argument or case for god, sin and what's wrong with the world. All that's asserting is something is not properly understood which is a pointless statement to make.

The difference between the elect and non-elect simply is this, not all that are called will choose Christ, this is Biblical. Matt.22:1-14 is the parable of the wedding feast.

I'm apathetic to weddings and royalty. Being an asexual anti-royalist I can't relate to either of them. This parable has no meaning for me whatsoever. Find another more suitable one please.

I believe this one to be down to earth, not to rich for our blood so to speak. Matthew 13:3-23 is a parable about a farmer, read all the verses they fit your life.

On this we agree, God being love would not do this. Everyone has a chance at heaven, even those who never hear the gospel, as I explained earlier in this thread. Actually Christ did die only for those who would choose Him, but all are given that chance to chose Him. God desires that none perish, this to me puts an end to predestination.

Why would I want Heaven?

Why would I want to be with God?

I didn't even want to come into this life or choose to exist yet it happened anyway. What difference does wanting or needing something or someone make?

The first two questions you'll have to answer for yourself.
None of us have a choice about coming into existence, or when in history it will happen, that is the way things come about, personally I extremely grateful I'm here, and will be with God forever.
I'm not sure what you're relating to in the last sentence?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

@Ryft


Firstly, I explicitly said to forget whether or not my fictional story were possible: “Forgot [sic] for the moment whether this conversation could actually take place given your views. That’s not the point”

It’s irrelevant whether Bob could actually talk to God. It’s the sheer injustice of God condemning Bob that I was trying to bring out. Some people understand something better in parables than they do in arguments.

My view has a clause in that sentence which is conveniently missing from your caricature.

Then tell me what it is. I’m not trying to purposely misrepresent your views. You’re wasting time if you know the answer yet leave me to guess what it is.

I said “God is evil merely by making election unconditional and only selecting a few.”

You replied:

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

God is evil because he condemns people to an eternity of suffering who do not deserve it. He condemns because of actions and desires (or the lack of desires) that they could not help. Of course, I have to show why they do not deserve it. That’s found in the rest of this post.

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

You said previously:

The election by God of particular people for redemption is explicitly and clearly stated in the Bible. What is not stated in the Bible, nor is it even implied, is the reason why God chose these people but not those—although it does state what the reason was not, namely, anything to do with the people in themselves (Rom. 9:11; cf. v, 16; 2 Tim. 1:9). In other words, election is unconditional.[emphasis mine]

If you say that God condemns non-elect because they sin and rejected him, and that this is the condition by which he condemns, then he not condemning by a condition in which they had any control over. They had no choice but to sin and reject him. The reason they are like this is because God unconditionally did not elect them. And then God condemns them based on a condition that was only the result of God’s unconditionally not electing them (as I will show below).

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.

They are not at fault. God condemns the non-elect because of their multitude of sins and because of they have rejected him. Why are they like this? Because God did not choose them, die for them, and save them. If he had, they would have responded to his calling, and accepted him. If the only way they can accept God and not have their multitude of sins count of against them is if God choose them, died for them, and called them, then they can’t help but reject God and sin because God didn’t do these things for them. They are incapable of doing otherwise. In order to be at fault for something, one must able to have been capable of doing otherwise. They non-elect are not capable of doing otherwise therefore they aren’t at fault. God is at fault because he did not elect them, which would have given them the capability. I will develop this further.

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.

I’m not saying you do believe that. I'm not sure who would actually believe it. I’m saying that given your view, that’s what really true, whether you realize it or not.

And to prove that I have actually read your posts, here’s the parts from which I developed my conclusions:

1.

That once the elect are called and regenerated, now turning to Christ in faith and repentance, they are no longer comfortable in and with their sin; that is, they hate their sin and yearn to stop sinning, and all the more as God continues to sanctify them in the pure image of God, Jesus Christ. They also now love God and the things of God, and all the more as they are being sanctified. Moreover, they are no longer under condemnation, the penalty their sin was due having been borne by Christ and nailed to the cross, with the righteous requirement of the law being fulfilled in them through the faithfulness of Christ for all who believe.

2.

It is a stark difference from the non-elect, who are left unregenerated and remain under condemnation, left to continue enjoying their sin and increasing it, despising God and the things of God, an obdurate rebellion and ingratitude to which God responds by removing what little grace they had been extended, and in the end having to bear the penalty their sin is due themselves (which some here have even insisted on).

3.

...being of the non-elect is why they do not go to heaven. It is not why they go to hell. They are condemned because of their multitude of sins, the penalty for which they must bear themselves (which some even insist on). Again, that is the condition in which absolutely everyone finds themselves; and it is out of that already condemned lot that God chose to save some. So being of the non-elect is why they do not go to heaven; they were already condemned to hell.

In the first quote, you explicitly state that the elect are “called” and “regenerated.” They then “turn” to Christ in “repentance.” They hate sin. They are also are continually sanctified by God. They are also no longer “under condemnation.” Their sins were paid by Christ. They’re having a pretty good time.

In the second quote, the non-elect aren’t having as much fun. Twice you use the word “left” as in they were “left unregenerate” and “left to continue enjoying their sin...” Left by whom I must ask? God left them! God left them unregenerate. God let them remain under condemnation. God left them to continue to enjoy their sin. God left them to increase in their sin. God left them to despise him. God left them in rebellion and ingratitude. God left them to bear their own sins.

In the third quote, you then say that it’s still the non-elect fault’s that they go to hell because of the “multitude of sins.” So you still think God is faultless in all of this. I will show next that they aren’t at fault for their “multitude of sins” and rejection of God.


A few more quotes

If God does not intend to save a person, then it does not matter whether or not they hear the gospel; they would willingly reject it anyway. But if God intends to save a person, then that person will hear the gospel—no matter where they live—and will respond in faith and will be kept in Christ and raised by him at the last day.

In this case, the person’s destiny is dependent on God’s “intent.”

"I lay down my life for the sheep," Jesus said (John 10:15). The sheep symbolize those who the Father gives to the Son (elect), while the goats symbolize everyone else (non-elect). "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day" (John 6:38-39). Who did the Father give to him? The sheep (John 10:29). He died only for those God intended to save.

Again, a person’s destiny is dependent upon God’s “intent.”

You then completely contradict yourself however, methinks:

“They can't help it? Who said? That is not what biblical Christianity teaches, Tegh. They willingly choose to sin, so it is just for God to condemn them to hell...

They are not “willingly” choosing to sin because God purposely intended to leave them unregenerate. They are not “willingly” “choosing” to sin and reject God anymore than the elect “choose” to love God and hate sin (the elect after all have no choice in the matter either since God will always succeed in calling his elect).

You also left a very long quote of a calvinist:

It is generally true that in order to be responsible a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God's commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God's commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God's word—they do understand what it says, and they don't like it! The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities, nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man's problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness—and this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.

And why doesn’t he obey God’s law? Why doesn’t he trust in Christ? Why doesn’t he love God? According to this guy, it’s because of the “desires of his heart.” Men “...loves sin and hates righteousness.”

So how can man be and do otherwise? They can’t unless they’re part of the elect, as you said: “That once the elect are called and regenerated, now turning to Christ in faith and repentance, they are no longer comfortable in and with their sin; that is, they hate their sin and yearn to stop sinning, and all the more as God continues to sanctify them in the pure image of God, Jesus Christ. ...”

So basically, you’re telling me that non-elect man does not obey God and worship him because he has no desire to, and this desire only comes from God, and then God condemns them for actions that they did because they did not have the desire, a desire which only comes from God. God is at fault (and is thus evil), not them, because he condemns them for not acting upon a desire that only he could provide! They can’t help it if they don’t have that desire.