Mike wrote:
Excellent. Now that we are no longer DEAD in sin, we are DEAD to sin. Therefore we can no longer sin, right? Cause everyone knows DEAD means DEAD, as in no life, right? Or is some dead deader than other dead?

Mike wrote:
Is God divided against himself?

God is not the author of sin!

Mike wrote:
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass.” [WCF, Ch.3(1)]
Exodus 20:13
"Thou shalt not kill."
Exodus 20:14
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

God of calvinism wrote:
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass.” [WCF, Ch.3(1)]
"Sin is one of the 'whatsoevers' that have 'come to pass', all of which are 'ordained'." (W.G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed)
"Nothing comes to pass contrary to His decree. Nothing happens by chance. Even moral evil, which He abhors and forbids, occurs 'by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.'" (W.G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed)
"It is even Biblical to say that God has foreordained sin." (Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 82)

God of calvinism wrote:
Do you believe, as Calvin does, that every action of the creature (sinful or otherwise) is willed by God, including Adam's sin and Satan's sin?
If Christ is your master, presumably you resent the label "calvinist", even though you believe what he believes?

An example of this is found in 1Ki 22:20-23: "And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."

God of calvinism wrote:
Why don't you study that quote from your master which was prefixed to my last and that will explain my comment.
If you cannot follow where your master went, then you have to question whether you are a good calvinist

God of calvinism wrote:
Problem with his followers is that they cannot allow themselves to go where he went with doctrine, because a great many of them know that it would make God the author of sin.

As for your comment "They had no choice silly, because God willed it and therefore they were irresistibly drawn to do it."

You are wrong! God used their evil sins to accomplish His purpose. They are responsible for their sins!

God of calvinism wrote:
Then, how is it John Smith’s fault that he will end up burning forever in the lake of fire?

God created the first man Adam upright, "good and after his own image, in the true knowledge of God, in righteousness and in holiness."

God of calvinism wrote:
Anyways to continue...
C God: “Would you like to know the ramifications of your choice?”
Person: “Not really.”
C God: “I chose to be gracious towards you.”
Person: “You did?”
C God: “I did.”
Person: “Wait! See, YOU’RE the One who did the choosing.”
C God: “I never said that I didn’t make a choice. I simply said that you ALSO had a choice, and YOU made your choice.”
Person: “Well, I guess it turned out ok, so I’m happy.”
C God: “Good. I’m glad that you’re happy.”
Person: “What about these others?”
C God: “I chose something different.”
Person: “Are they happy with THEIR choice?”
C God: “No.”
Person: “Well…they made their choice. They should just accept that.”
Calvinist God: “Exactly!”

Mike wrote:
How sad the level of blindness when it is said that "Christ would, but they would not" means something completely different, denying the very meaning of the words, and how sad the level of deafness not to hear lament in "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem..."

Mike wrote:
Exactly. But to weep over the hell-bound unrepentant make no sense, seeing as how they were "passed over."
Passed over by whom?

Passed over or not they are still responsible and guilty for their sins against God.

IMO when considering the context of the chapter, the author of the article "Understanding Matt 23:37" is closer to the true interpretation of Matt 23:37 than those who believe the following about the text:

(1) “Jesus...wanted to save the Jews He was speaking to here

(2) Though He desired to do this, He could not

(3) The reason for this was their stubborn refusal to allow themselves to be gathered. (Christ “would,” but they “would not.”)

Mike wrote:
Question: When Jesus wept over Jerusalem, was it the pretty buildings caused his lament?

Matthew 23:37 does not tell us Jesus was lamenting, distressed or weeping at that time.

In Luke 19:41-44 tells us that Jesus wept over the city as He drew near to it and then tells us why.

And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
(Luk 19:41-44)

Mike wrote:
Based on your interpretation, who then was Jesus distressed about over Jerusalem? The elect or the non-elect?
1) If the elect, why the distress?
2) If the non-elect, why the distress?

FB wrote:
Calvinists who like using proof texts and imposing a meaning on the scriptures which are not there, may be interested to know that David Cloud has listed all the texts that are commonly abused by Calvinists and shown how they are twisted to support a theology which is not scriptural. Click on the link to get a biblical education:
[URL=http://www.wayoflife.org/database/calvinismprooftext.html]]]Calvinism's proof texts examined[/URL]

xv wrote:
Ability and responsibility go hand in hand. You cut off ability, then there is no responsibility.

“Therefore man's own inability is something he is guilty for, and that inability cannot therefore be seen as something that relieves the sinner of responsibility.”

Lurker wrote:
My objection was that if you filter everything you say to sinners through the lens of TULIP, you have become an ineffective servant of God because you can't tell them that if they repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, He will in no wise cast them away.
Be honest, Phylly. You can't say anything like that to a poor lost sinner, even though it's entirely biblical, because it implies the sinner has the innate ability to choose God which flies in the face of the doctrine of total depravity. Calvinism/Reformed theology, given this level of dominance over the thoughts and motions of its adherents, is a detriment to the furtherance of God's kingdom. This, imo, is what nearly everyone was trying to point out to you today.