CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
What can we do to get rid of this contradiction? For one, we can say that what God wills does not actually happen; hence, He is not all-powerful (we can, then, conclude that neither the cross is powerful enough for all to be saved, nor is God poweful enough to keep people from authoring things in Scripture that are false). For two, we can say that everyone will be saved; hence, God is a liar and, thus, evil (we can, then, conclude that the Bible is untrustworthy, which means that we cannot believe that God will save everybody). For three, God has a competing desire, which usurps His desire for all to be saved.
P4: God's will for all to be saved is usurped by His will for some to be vessels of wrath (Romans 9:19-23; Proverbs 16:4)
No contradiction arises. Hence, Calvinism is the logical doctrine to believe in.
First, why are you here discussing theology when your an atheist?
Second, since God is incomprehendable, it makes perfect sense that we can't understand EVERYTHING about his character. The relationship between his decreed will and his moral will are one of these.
So according to this.... god is internally conflicted. He has desires that CONTRADICT each other, just like your bible has passages that contradict each other. As soon as you stop so desperately trying to gloss over the contradictions, there is a chance that you yourself can become less internally conflicted.
“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” - Isaac Asimov
Keep telling yourself that you trust an infallible being, while clinging to the idol you've made of your bible. When you finally realize that all trust is rooted in self trust, you might have a euphoric "born again" experience.
Speedy obedience there lolzors. I suspect that you think you are being trustworthy when you say that. Keep trying to do good according to the best understanding you have. I admire the effort.
God does not take delight in the destruction of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23). However, He has a greater desire, which is for a greater good, which He does take pleasure in.
The passages that I posted for the final premise explains it all
Those passages basically say who are you to question god. He created you so he can do whatever he wants to you. He created people destined for hell so he could prove to the people that he isn't sending to hell that he is merciful. That doesn't make him look merciful, it makes him look evil and psychotic. Why is he so insecure that he has to prove anything to us anyways?
Genesis 50:20: "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."
So an all powerful and loving god can't come up with a better way to save lives (from himself) than to create people whom he destined for eternal torment. I'm sorry, but a 5 year old could come up with a better plan than that.
So he created us to stroke his ego. Is he really that insecure? He created millions of people destined for eternal torment "to glorify himself." That doesn't glorify him, it makes him look like an evil monster.
Not at all! God destroying the wicked is a glorious thing! haha Whether that wickedness be determined by God or not, it is a glorious thing for Him to do so!
You think creating people then subjecting them to eternal torment is glorious, and you actually laugh about it?!?! I'm starting to wonder if you're related to Fred Phelps.
All things happen for a purpose: and they all lead to God's glory! Those whom God creates to be wicked have still been wicked and deserve to be punished... God does not take pleasure in this; however, He does take delight in the the end of this punishment, which is His glorification and the mercy and love of His elect! The wicked are, in a sense, made with the divine purpose of love and grace and mercy to be shown to His elect so that they may live in love and grace and mercy with Him! We rejoice in the fact that we have been predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son in whom we take delight! He loves His elect and does everything for them along with everything for His own glory, since it the greatest thing! You see... this actually brings up a belief that is philosophical and very controversial: because His nature demands praise (His nature intrinsically results in the praise from everything), then it follows that, since it is His story and His glory reflected in everything, whether it be good or the destruction of the evil, all of creation is intrinsic to Him... meaning that His own nature intrinsically demands everything that happens in the world: the good to be glorified and the evil to be destroyed; however, evil must exist first for it to be destroyed! This is one theory for the universe and I think it fits quite well with this notion! :)
I'm about to ask you a lot of questions. They are not rhetorical, I actually want honest answers.
Those whom God creates to be wicked have still been wicked and deserve to be punished
If I create a robot and program it to go around killing people, whose fault is it that the robot is killing people? Is it the robots fault or mine? Keep in mind that I programmed the robot and it has no choice but to do what I programmed it to do.
God does not take pleasure in this;
Whether or not he takes pleasure in it makes no difference. If I go around doing horrible things to people but I don't take pleasure in it does it make it okay?
He does take delight in the the end of this punishment, which is His glorification and the mercy and love of His elect!
If I have a kid and I force him to rape someone, then torture my kid for doing it, does that glorify me? That's basically what you're saying your god does.
If I have another kid and don't kill him do you think that make me merciful and glorious or do you think just that just mean I'm not a psychopath?
The wicked are, in a sense, made with the divine purpose of love and grace and mercy to be shown to His elect so that they may live in love and grace and mercy with Him!
Should I follow gods example and walk into a school and start shooting kids but spare some so that they will think I'm full of love and grace for sparing them? I'm just blown away that you don't see a problem with what you're saying.
If I create a robot and program it to go around killing people, whose fault is it that the robot is killing people? Is it the robots fault or mine? Keep in mind that I programmed the robot and it has no choice but to do what I programmed it to do.
The robot's nature meant it for evil, but the creator meant it for good: a good that many of us probably don't have the answer for! :)
I asked you 5 questions and you only answered 1, and you barely even answered that one. You basically said god creates evil and that somehow achieves good, but we just don't understand why it's good. http://i.imgur.com/2Lg0z9d.gif
All the questions are all answered by that one response. God does not create evil, since it is not a thing, but the lack of a thing: God allows evil and achieves great good from it.
That answer doesn't even come remotely close to answering those questions. You're dodging the questions because you know that to answer them truthfully would show that the Calvinistic version of god is a giant douche, not that the Armenian version is much better. Forget all those questions, just answer this one. Imagine I have 2 kids, Kip and Casey. I decide that Kip is my chosen one and I want to show Kip what a merciful person I am. So I lock Casey in a cage and torture him every day for the rest of his life. Then I say to Kip, "I'm not going to torture you because you are my chosen one. Aren't I merciful and glorious for sparing you?" This is exactly what you are saying god does. Can you honestly tell me you think this is a "glorious" way of showing mercy and not just something a complete psychopath would do?
(1) Only the elect are God's children. God hates all others, except for a common gracious and loving sense.
(2) If Casey were actually evil, then God would be just to send him to eternal torture. If Casey were not evil, then it would not be gracious. Kip was originally evil but made good to be reconciled to God!
Okay, it's obvious that you're just trolling. I don't believe for a second that you actually believe what you're saying. I have a strong suspicion you are either the guy with all the puppet accounts or Prodigee. Either way, I'm not going to waste any more time on this debate.
I'm just as surprised as you are that I believe this to be true and just and gracious and loving and kind and great... :) But thats the message of the Gospel! From what you are saying, we find great joy in! You see, in a carnal state of man we are all evil, the nature that came about as a result of Adam's sin, which was God's will. We hate God and we don't want anything to do with God and His justice... However, I believe it because my carnal state of man has been matched with a spiritual state, which bears witness to myself that God is good and just and great! I understand perfectly that no person can understand these things, not that they accept them.... However, this shows me the message of the Gospel to be true and wonderful!
How would God be cruel? How would He be unloving? God is love, yet God hates the wicked (Psalm 5:5 is just one example): God has had a pre-love and pre-communion with His elect, which means that God has only loved His elect in a personal and congenial sense; however, He loves the non-elect with common grace and common love to all of His creations. God is love and God is righteousness; because good trees only bear good fruit and bad trees bad fruit, it follows that whatever God applies Himself to is loving and righteous, while whatever He doesn't is neither of those two. So I don't see your objection.
This is what the Bible says. I believe it and I think it portrays a loving and kind God, in my personal opinion... Read Isaiah 10, in which God gives the Assyrians a nature that is evil and arrogant to fulfill God's purposes and that the only reason they did the things that did was because He planned it to be so; however, in that very passage, God says that He will condemn them. Moreover, Genesis 50:20 paints a picture as to how there is a dividing line between what we do and what God does: why what we do is evil, while what God does is good, though they both resulted in the same thing.
The picture you paint of God is of a cruel alcholic father that beats his children for the slightest imperfection. That is why I refuse religious labels. god is my religion. Everyone else needs to step aside.
Let me ask you this: do you believe the Bible or do you reject the logic train? For what reasons do you have to reject either or these from a purely objective standpoint, not a subjective one?
You said: (1) Only the elect are God's children. (I agree). You also said: God hates all others, except for a gracious and loving sense. Read 1 John 4. You also said: (2) If Casey were actually evil, then God would be just to send him to eternal torture. If Casey were not evil, then it would not be gracious. Kip was originally evil but made good reconciled to God! So yes, it does glorify God! It is wonderful! It is quite disgusting that you celebrate the etewrnal torture of another human being. Do you work for Westboro, by any chance?
God does love the world; however, in what sense is the word "world" being used here? Multiple times throughout the Bible it has different senses: some being the actual earth, some meaning the evil ones, and some meaning the elect. Here it means the elect. And even if it didn't mean just the elect, then it still wouldn't negate God hating people in a personal sense, since God loves and cares for everything, even the wicked, in a common grace sense. However, I do want to clarify that Jesus only died for the elect, which is another point of contention in favor of this "world" meaning solely the elect; if Jesus died for everyone, then even the wicked are going to heaven, since even their sins have been paid for and they are cleansed.
I do not agree. If that was the case, He would not love us first. Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
The elect are elect before they are Christians. Those who are elect are elected before the foundations of the world. Hence, the "we" still only refers to the elect.
We are not saved until we repent and accept Jesus; however, God has determined who will repent and accept Jesus, since we can only become Christians under the will of God (1 Corinthians 12:3).
We are not saved until we repent and accept Jesus; however, God has determined who will repent and accept Jesus, since we can only become Christians under the will of God (1 Corinthians 12:3). I can agree to this. What bothers me is your seeming celebration over the suffering of unbelievers. My heart grieves for them.
The robot's nature meant it for evil, but the robot's creator meant it for good? I can only pray that you will someday recognize how utterly nonsensical that statement is.
It would be a bad parent that would willingly allow serious harm to come to one of their children, just as an example to the favored children regarding what not to do. If a loving parent was capable, they would see to it that all their children enjoyed protection from that which is harmful to them.
According to you, and the way you interpret your bible, some people, whom god chooses, have absolutely nothing to worry about in terms of being saved, because god will see to it that they are saved. Others have absolutely no legitimate hope of being saved. To entertain this poor line of thinking, neither the elect or the unelect have reason to be concerned with trying to behave righteously. As more and more people improve their critical thinking skills, these retarded narratives about god's chosen and unchosen people will be remembered as being supportive of one of the most harmful beliefs of christian mythology.
The Bible teaches that people do not sin or do righteousness to become sinful or righteous. The Bible teaches that the person who is sinful will naturally sin and that the person who is righteous will naturally do righteousness. There is no issue here.
Well I was thinking about the belief that some people are by nature "evil" or as you might say "not among god's elect". That is a bad belief.
Since you mentioned it, I think the either/or absolutist mentality underlies both bad beliefs. There really are people who think of a bible in such a way that it's supposedly either entirely true or entirely false. You seem to be one of these people. Hopefully you will outgrow this.
The entire Bible is true. The Bible says that people are by nature evil and must be born of a spiritual nature to do any good. How is this a bad belief?
It allows a nasty superiority complex to develop in people who fancy themselves "born-again". In other words it generally devalues the supposed "lesser" forms of life.
The heavens and the earth will be destroyed at the end of this age. A new heavens and a new earth will be formed and Zion will come to rest on the world: God will bring His kingdom to earth. This is what the Bible prophesies and promises to all believers.
That's what I've heard. It represents a belief that helps people disregard their personal responsibility to make this world the best we can. That's why I view it as a bad belief. I think we'd be more careful if we were uncertain about whether or not right will prevail.
God put Adam in the garden to tend to it and work it. When we become alive in Christ, we are made to resemble Him. Christ is said to be the Last Adam: He tends to His flock and tends to the world by giving all things that live their life and by providing for them, as He does the birds of the air. Should Christians not take care of this life and this world?
I think Christians should, but common sense should tell you that we don't invest in that which we believe to be destined for destruction. Didn't Jesus specifically instruct his disciples to make a distinction between spiritual concerns and worldly concerns, and that the latter is vastly more important?
We lay up our treasures in heaven and not in the earth. However, us taking care of the earth and that which is in it is not out of love for it, in of itself. We do it for two reasons: (1) it is our nature to love and care for things, since we have been made into the image of God, and (2) that which we do representing Christ is for Christ: we do things in the name of Christ and for Christ by doing things for the people of the world, including the least of us, so that they may see the Gospel of Christ within us. Doing things things for the least of us includes many times doing community service, which can include environmental aspects. Hence, many of the things that we do for the spiritual, are enacted through the physical.
We lay up our treasures in heaven and not in the earth.
I am all for having increasingly enlightened notions about what should be treated like treasure, but unless you can tell me details about an experience you had "laying up" treasures in heaven, I shall consider your use of that verse as utterly hollow.
However, us taking care of the earth and that which is in it is not out of love for it, in of itself. We do it for two reasons: (1) it is our nature to love and care for things, since we have been made into the image of God
And let me guess, you see no contradiction between that statement and the one you typed earlier "The Bible says that people are by nature evil"
(2) that which we do representing Christ is for Christ: we do things in the name of Christ and for Christ by doing things for the people of the world, including the least of us, so that they may see the Gospel of Christ within us.
From watching you, here is how the gospel is being presented....
If god loves you enough, everything will work out to your benefit, if he doesn't, you will end up being tormented eternally. If you are one of the poor souls that god created to be a "vessel of wrath" you might as well relish in your evil ways as much as you can, because there is no way god is going to change his mind about where you are to end up. Despite bible verses to the contrary, god doesn't change his mind. Those who make the cut with god, are saved from eternal torture through a "special" form divine justice that allows for someone innocent to be punished in lieu of the guilty party. Now that might seem obviously unjust, and patently ridiculous, but it doesn't stop there. If you happen to be one of the elect, not only do you get to have an innocent person punished on your behalf, but this person is actually the judge who is miraculously his own son. Basically god let part of himself (Jesus) get tortured to death to "justify" letting you off the hook.
Now I know some Christians who understand that the best way to continue transmitting the central Christian message is to help the disadvantaged, but their idea of what the central Christian message is IS NOTHING LIKE what I described above in italics which is a characterization of how YOU represent christianity. If I have misrepresented your position please point that out.
Doing things things for the least of us includes many times doing community service, which can include environmental aspects. Hence, many of the things that we do for the spiritual, are enacted through the physical.
I don't buy into the spiritual/physical dichotomy. Whatever you do is a display of your value system. If there is a good message at the core of Christianity it's....caring about the well being of others, is caring about your own well being. Anything that distracts from that is crap that once dispensed with will make Christianity more true to the spirit of Christ's teachings.
See I would think the greatest being possible would already be as "glorified" as could be. Maybe we understand the word differently. What does glorify mean as far as you understand?
He doesn't need anything and does not gain anything from anyone. If He is omnipotent, then He can't not be already maxed in glory, which He is. glorify simply means to exalt Himself, which is bound up in His nature, since it demands worship (recall the story when Christ says that if no one worships him, then rocks would).
You are just wrong. If something is in the highest possible position, it cannot be further exalted. If a being is as glorified as possible, it cannot be further glorified. I am showing you were your logic fails, but I won't pretend to be god, I can't give you eyes to see.
Exalting is not an action of raising up. It is an action of praise. One who is glorious does not become more glorious from exaltation, which is to glorify. My logic has yet to fail. Don't equivocate glory. There is an action of praise and state of being.
(we can, then, conclude that the Bible is untrustworthy, which means that we cannot believe that God will save everybody). For three, God has a competing desire, which usurps His desire for all to be saved.
You pointed out a massive contradiction and said quite literally the bible is untrustworthy.
I said that this could be one way to fix the contradiction. I then went on to say that there was another way to fix it, which would make the Bible still trustworthy. Pay attention to context. Don't pick and choose what you want to think I said.
Your "fix" was to make assumptions then quote another bible verse. You did admit though that one possibility the contradiction creates is that the bible is untrustworthy.
Of course we can always say that the Bible is false. However, that would be intellectual dishonest, since there are many verses that say that God has a competing and greater desire. Hence, the Bible is still trustworthy and not contradictory. But to be logically consistent, one would have to be a Calvinist, not an Arminian.
What does it matter what verses say shit about what god wants if the entire bible could be false and god himself could be nonexistent? How is it intellectually dishonest to dismiss such verses after concluding that alot of the bible is false, contradictory, or absurd? I think it's intellectually dishonest to cling stubbornly to it in hopes that it might be right when it has demonstrated time and time again that its wrong.
And I couldn't give less of a shit about Calvinist vs Armenian whatever.
None of the Bible is false or contradictory. So to conclude that God could be nonexistent is a belief that has no justification for. It is a go to response that takes no intellectual backing.
You pointed out a massive contradiction in the bible. then to fix it you had to conclude either god was a liar or the bible was false. Then somehow quoted another bible verse to fix it. Then you now say none of it is contradictory.
the bible is NOT completely true and uncontradictory in fact its the complete opposite. any intellectually honest person can see that people dont come from dirt and burning shrubbery doesnt talk. Accepting this as total fact is a belief that has no justification. Believing such trash in the face of all available evidence we have takes no intellectual backing.
When did I say that the only way to fix the problem is to conclude that God is either a liar or that the Bible was false? I clearly stated that there was another option.
The Bible is completely true; there are no contradictions within it.
What can we do to get rid of this contradiction? For one, we can say that what God wills does not actually happen; hence, He is not all-powerful (we can, then, conclude that neither the cross is powerful enough for all to be saved, nor is God poweful enough to keep people from authoring things in Scripture that are false). For two, we can say that everyone will be saved; hence, God is a liar and, thus, evil (we can, then, conclude that the Bible is untrustworthy, which means that we cannot believe that God will save everybody). For three, God has a competing desire, which usurps His desire for all to be saved.
The first two options would mean god is not all powerfull or is a liar and evil. The last one is dependent on other bible versesto support it which read as such:
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[a] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—
This is an assumption in itself. Not a definate statement of "fact". Its begging a question not giving an answer.
4 The Lord works out everything to its proper end—
even the wicked for a day of disaster.
This only suggests that everything, even wicked people, have a purpose. Your summary of these in the description is false. The passage from Romans is a question and not an answer, and the other says nothing of gods will or competing wills, only that bad people serve some kind of purpose.
Basically, your third option is flawed so we must backtrack to the other two thus making god evil, not all powerfull, or the bible false.
And even if these passages DID say what you made them out to say, it still wouldnt destroy the first two options. God STILL could be evil, the bible STILL false, or god STILL not all powerfull. Just having these available as an option leaves doubt enough for you to not be able to say the bible is completely true.
What it comes down to is: what is more likely? That the entire bible is totally true and these passages are true and mean what you poorly interpreted them to mean? or that it is in fact a contradiction and a simple error in a 2000 year old book? You talk alot about logic but dont seem capable of employing it realistically.
The bible is not completely true, Not even close. At the very least i can point to genesis: Noahs ark is impossible. The world never flooded. Snakes dont talk. Boom. Your statement is false.
We can conclude that the Bible is not the word of God. This is going from the premise that what we find in the Bible is the basis for truth. It also assumes for logic.
"Whether i'm reader to meet my maker is, of no relevance. Whether or not if he is ready to meet me is the real question." If we obviously have the capability to doubt any ideal in existence. Wouldn't it make it rational to conclude;
1. It's irrelevant even if it's factional reasoning. We have the aptitude to doubt so we will never be certain, even in our own belief. Why waste time on pondering an answer that doesn't determine an outcome of your existing reality.
2. Hypothetically speaking, if he were to be the creator it is obvious, from the Darwinist nature of life. Even if rationalized his reasoning on such wrath, is disgusting. I'd rather go to hell before conforming to a non-rationalist.
I myself think something superior is existing, but has no influence on the world anymore.
1. It's irrelevant even if it's factional reasoning. We have the aptitude to doubt so we will never be certain, even in our own belief. Why waste time on pondering an answer that doesn't determine an outcome of your existing reality.
Not at all! We still perceive reality, which is why the Bible declares that we have freedom in the knowledge of Christ! If we have complete faith in God and the fact that all things work for the good of those who love Him, then what shall we fear?
2. Hypothetically speaking, if he were to be the creator it is obvious, from the Darwinist nature of life. Even if rationalized his reasoning on such wrath, is disgusting. I'd rather go to hell before conforming to a non-rationalist.
Dependancy. That is why faith exists. Even if it is true and god does exist, it's weak to run from problems and go to gods lap and cry. Also it's disgusting that he's glorified yet a child torturing his ant farm. I am my own god.
How have I made it into a den of thieves? This is what the Bible says... so if you disagree with the logic and the Bible, then so be it. However, I would ask you this: is someone a Christian who does not believe the Bible?
Then why would Jesus say what he did? As I've said I looked at Romans 8 and 9 and its in reference to isreal how he favors people over people, but all people can still come to God. That'd why I refrenced the den of thieves. It is in reference to Jeremiah 3. The Pharisees were limiting the temple to only a few. God didn't want this, Gods temple was made for all to come and worship, just not the he chose. If Godcould pick, why ddidn't he just have everyone worship him? Its like him bringing glory to himself by playing a game he both made up and rigged, theirs no point.
As I've said I looked at Romans 8 and 9 and its in reference to isreal how he favors people over people, but all people can still come to God.
Then why do Romans 8 and 9 clarify that it is not just for the Jews but also for the Greeks? The Greeks references that it is also for the Gentiles. Hence, it is not only for Israel but for the whole world, especially since God had established earlier in Romans that He shows no partiality towards any nation. And even if you want to say that it is just for the Greeks, Romans that is, then there are countless other verses that state that God chooses who will come to Him and that no one can come to Him unless God chooses Him to come to Him: 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 Corinthians 4:7
Then why would Jesus say what he did? ..... That'd why I refrenced the den of thieves. It is in reference to Jeremiah 3. The Pharisees were limiting the temple to only a few. God didn't want this, Gods temple was made for all to come and worship, just not the he chose.
Now to the matter of the temple. The Pharisees were letting any who may come come. However, what Jesus was mad about was that they had made a house of prayer, which is by faith, into a house of works, pay to get into heaven, since the Jews could pay to get their sacrifices. Hence, this is actually a doctrine of grace, not works. Arminianism is a doctrine of works; hence, Jesus is actually referring to people who do not follow grace based doctrine of Calvinism... Any who come are welcome (John 3:16); the issue is that God has chosen who shall come (John 6:37; John 10:26).
If Godcould pick, why ddidn't he just have everyone worship him?
That is answered in Romans 9. And it also doesn't follow that if God wills for all to come, and God's will never fails, then some shall not come. You can say that God is not all-powerful, if you so desire. Or you can say that God does not will for all to come. What do you want to do?
Its like him bringing glory to himself by playing a game he both made up and rigged, theirs no point.
Who says that there is no point. Remember, God does not gain anything from humans (Acts 17:25). So He can either bring glory to Himself, as Romans 9 establishes, which allows others to live in Him and His love and to experience love, since He is loving and rejoices in love, which makes Him willing to share it. Or He can create nothing and glorify Himself that way. You pick.
However, with all of this in mind, you are still committing a red herring, since none of your argument have any bearing on the argument.
Correct, the Greeks are mentioned in Romans. The Jews were Gods chosen people and they were meant to show Gods light to the world. The Greeks were missioned to by Paul. God showed partiality to Isreal (real reason why Jacob and Eusa are mentioned, it is about Is real, not the elect. You see this because he talks about Is real right before this!)
Did you even read Jeremiah 3?
It speaks about how closed off Gods temple to people, and yet they skipped around doing whatever they wanted and knew that it was sin, and they had the gall to block of the temple to people. Protestants believe in grace. Most of our doctrine says we have no glory because we merely receive salvation. That's not work based. Accepting Gods salvation is not a work. I mean even Calvinism says this.
Romans 9 SATs nothing about us being Gods play things. It talks about God showing his grace to the whole world.
Correct, the Greeks are mentioned in Romans. The Jews were Gods chosen people and they were meant to show Gods light to the world. The Greeks were missioned to by Paul. God showed partiality to Isreal (real reason why Jacob and Eusa are mentioned, it is about Is real, not the elect. You see this because he talks about Is real right before this!)
And then right after He says that this is not only talking about the Jews but also the Greeks. Romans 2:11: "For God shows no partiality." The context of this is for nations. Romans 9:
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
Did you even read Jeremiah 3?
It speaks about how closed off Gods temple to people, and yet they skipped around doing whatever they wanted and knew that it was sin, and they had the gall to block of the temple to people.
What verses specifically from it? I have found nothing that would go against what I have been saying.
Protestants believe in grace. Most of our doctrine says we have no glory because we merely receive salvation. That's not work based. Accepting Gods salvation is not a work. I mean even Calvinism says this.
Romans 12:3 establishes that our faith is from God. Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought. Hence, to claim that your faith is not from God is ignorant and arrogant.
Romans 9 SATs nothing about us being Gods play things. It talks about God showing his grace to the whole world.
It talks about God retaining some to be vessels of wrath; this is matched by countless other verses in the Bible such as Proverbs 16:4, Ephesians 1:11, Romans 8:28, etc. I'm done arguing with you. You never make any good arguments in favor of Arminianism and refuse to believe the Bible, and ignore the Bible verses I show you (even the ones I just posted in the last one, only focussing on one passage). I have warned you multiple times, past what the Bible says to do, and tried to bring you back to the truth of Christ as the end of James establishes. You are going against the Synod of Dort, which established Arminianism to be a heresy.
Titus 3:10-11: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."
