Funny how you cannot be as equally gracious to Esau who clearly showed signs of repentance.
I do not even think (I am not sure) that Jacob ever got over his lieing habit.
Besides, I was just using your perverted interpretation of Revelation 21:8. Unlike you, I can be equally as gracious to Esau as to Jacob. I believe that Esau and Jacob both had some growing to do and if you read the story, both of them did grow.
I prescribe him a working brain. The infection of Calvinism is too deep. It made practically his whole brain calloused to any truth. If one would consecutively bang the truth into his head, he would not feel a thing.
But if you would care to read the context, which you do not, you will discover that the comparison is not between the elect vs nonelect but rather Gentile verses Jew.
The conluding verses to:
"30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;"
Romans 9-11 throughout has the Gentile vs Jew theme. If Paul would wanted to teach unconditional election he sure blew it here. In contrast to the nebulous verses which the Calvinists choose, this verses (in the chapter which they have chosen mind you) give us the reason why the Jews as a nation rejected Christ while the Gentiles embraced him. Instead of waxing eloquent on unconditional election he betrays the whole position by providing the condition of Faith. Notice that seeking God is not a works salvation (as the Calvinist would have you believe) but seeking God without faith is what makes it a works salvation.
Contender stated: "Destruction is eternal condemnation."
That must be another definition that exists only within the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist.
But even if you were right you need to put on the extra powerful reading glasses that I prescribed you with and start reading from the beginning of the verse which YOU chose. You also need to stop lying (well I guess you are going to hell according to your interpretation of Rev. 21:8) and stating that one needs to read the NEXT FEW VERSES when clearly it is not the next verse. It's actually seven verses down. That can hardly be called the next few verses.
"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power know ENDURED WITH MUCH LONGSUFFERING (that was a good time to put on your glasses)the vessels of wrath..."
What ever it means, it surely does not mean that Esau was condemned to hell. Besides (1) its impossible to sell one's salvation for anything, let alone a bowl of soup (2) I doubt God has sent anyone to hell for eating a pot of soup over his birthright.
"The promise is that it is not God's will that any of the elect should perish, but that all of them should come to repentance. God is longsuffering to his elect. Just because they are elected to be saved, it doesn't mean that they are instantly saved just as being born into a Christian family makes them a Christian."
That's nice wishful thinking DB, but that's not what it states. If Peter were speaking of the elect, he would had simply stated it, do you not think. Instead of the elect he speaks of world with its ungodliness. What the passage STATES is that he desires the world to come to repentance. It's quite ridiculous for God to speak of destroying the elect, if he never planned to destroy them anyway. The bottom line is that what you wish the text to state and what it actually states are two different things. In fact the elect are not even mentioned in the whole chapter. For you to replace the pronoun "us-ward" with the elect when they are not even mentioned is a leap of faith in grammatical logic.
DB, I do not doubt your sincerity, but you are slowly falling into the error of the Calvinist when you read into the text more than what it states. I am not sure at what point you took the turn (for the worst) but I am sure I can provide the mnedication that you need.
Like I said Dawkins is not a scientist. Even your last post prove my point. At best he is a failed scientist. And I was reffering to the international yardstick called the ISI, not oxford where he is a chairman silly.
I would think that his official Webpage would have something good to say about him, just like my own personal webpage would have something good to say about me.
"The atheist who rebutted Gerson's article was just pointing out that the majority of Christians *say* they believe in the morality of the God of the Bible, but they clearly don't. They pick and choose their own morality. They ignore Old Testament laws when they conflict with their own morality, but then claim the Ten Commandments must be followed. The atheist is right on that point."
It's called rightly dividing the word of truth. Just because God commands Moses to cross the Red Sea, does'nt mean that every man throughout all history are obligated to do the same. There is such a thing called context.
7/23/07 3:04 PM
ENDURED WITH MUCH LONGSUFFERING 
7/20/07 7:23 PM
