How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[JAL]

(Sigh). The same tired old dancing in circles - round n' round we go.

Whoa! Indeed! Who teaches God sends some to hell through no fault of the persons?

YOU do. You define God as the First Cause of a subsequently deterministic system.

 

[GodsGrace101]

When someone tells you what you think...it wastes too much time trying to correct the wrong impression instead of getting on with the topic at hand. I wasn't insulted.

Yes, God's grace is open for all to take advantage of or deny.
We cannot add to God's grace in any way...God is full of grace - one cannot be more full than full.

The following verses about God's mercy (which is a part of His grace) tells that all are welcomed:

Isaiah 30:18
18So the LORD must wait for you to come to him
so he can show you his love and compassion.
For the LORD is a faithful God.
Blessed are those who wait for his help.

The above shows that God is waiting for us to go to HIM...again, we are able to seek God.
And then He will have love and compassion for us.

Psalm 86:15
15But you, O Lord,
are a God of compassion and mercy,
slow to get angry
and filled with unfailing love and faithfulness.

Matthew 5:4
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

so many more...


Our faith is not something we produce. Faith is already available to us as a gift from God.
The difference between the reformed and the rest of Christianity is that they believe faith is given to a select few,
whereas God's faith is available to all.
I've said before that Ephesians 2:8 is understood to mean that all mentioned are gifts: Grace, Faith, and Salvation


As to the living...it is the Holy Spirit that lives in us.
Everyone believes this...I won't even post anything since the alternative you state (we live in HIM) is not believed by anyone.

As to cooperation:
Yes. Our WALK with God is a cooperation between what we do in our lives and what God would have us to do.
I said OUR WALK with God. Please don't reply that I'm saving myself.
What could be debated is whether or not we have anything to do with our actual justification/salvation.

I'd have to say that, yes, we also cooperate in our salvation in the sense that God must make the offer of salvation,
and man must reply with a yes or a no.

Revelation 22:17
17The Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” Let anyone who hears this say, “Come.” Let anyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who desires drink freely from the water of life.

We're invited by God in some way or other - each in a different manner.
So God's grace calls to our heart, as God calls to everyone, and we must reply.

Matthew 23:37 Jesus said
37“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me. 38And now, look, your house is abandoned and desolate.


Jerusalem wouldn't LET Jesus protect her.
So now her house is desolate.
Not because Jesus caused it, but because Jerusalem would not have faith in Jesus.

So there definitely is a calling and a reply.

@Mark Quayle

Good morning
I spend a lot of time writing serious posts like the above.
Wouldn't it be right for you to reply and explain why the verses I posted are wrong?

I find that the reformed never reply to my verses.

IOW what did Jesus mean In Matthew 23:37 if not what i said?

Why does Rev 22:27 not prove that coming to God is not our choice?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Whoa! Indeed! Who teaches God sends some to hell through no fault of the persons?

I was going to leave your post alone, but this plain galls me.

Why does it gall you?
Please explain why some go to hell.

Could you please reply to my posts instead of leaving them alone?

I just wrote you regarding this in the post just above.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Please exegete Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words and consistent with Paul's argument there.
Then we will have a basis for discussion.

You're funny.
Try to read verses with no preconceived idea.

And, perhaps, you could reply as to why you don't agree with me too. That would be nice.

Maybe you can't?

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Is it just the question: "Where is the good news?"?

The good news is the Gospel. Grace. If you want more than that, the answer ranges from creation to Heaven, and involves even the very nature of God. It is far from being only a safe final destination. It is the journey and the character of the destination. I'm not looking forward to being in Heaven as much as I am looking forward to seeing his face. Yet even here there is no end of joy and delight in speaking with him, who is delighted with what he is doing and what he has done —with what he is making.

Hi Mark,
I had posted that prompted your reply:

A woman went up to ask John Piper a question after a debate or discussion, can't remember.
She was very sad because she wasn't sure she was saved.
Now, if I was asked such a question I'd answer that if someone is worried that they are NOT saved, it most surely means they are.
Unsaved persons don't go through life worrying about it.

However, Piper replied that she was right...that she could not be sure.
Where is the good news?


Sorry if I wasn't clear.
John Piper told the woman she could not be sure of her salvation.
So I ask: WHERE IS THE GOOD NEWS?

The NT was written for the following reasons:

Mark 16:15-16 Jesus said
15And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone.
16Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned.

Preach the good news to EVERYONE
ANYONE who believes will be saved.

Luke 4:43 Jesus said
43But he replied, “I must preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God in other towns, too, because that is why I was sent.”

Jesus was sent to preach the GOOD NEWS.


AND WHAT IS THE GOOD NEWS?
That everyone, everywhere can be saved by believing...

John 20:31 Jesus said
31But these are written so you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.


If we believe in Jesus we can KNOW that we are born again.
It has nothing to do with feelings or doubts, as that woman had who asked Piper the question.
These should have been his answers...
NOT to proclaim that she probably wasn't saved.
So,,,where is the GOOD NEWS in his reply?

There is no good news in reformed theology....
except for those lucky ones that were chosen (by that theology).

 

[Mark Quayle]

(Sigh). The same tired old dancing in circles - round n' round we go.

YOU do. You define God as the First Cause of a subsequently deterministic system.

...And around we go...

Let's try a slightly different tack then.

Start from that position in your thinking then. Does God have the absolute right to make something to use and then destroy? Establish that in your mind first. Then consider that the person to be destroyed is not animate in the same sense that God is. As in Romans 9, some are made for one purpose, others for common use. In Ephesians 2, that person is already dead.

Isaiah 45:9,10
“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
those who are nothing but potsherds
among the potsherds on the ground.
Does the clay say to the potter,
‘What are you making?’
Does your work say,
‘The potter has no hands’?

This really isn't as complicated as self-deterministic people want it to be. Does not man know good from evil? Does man not have a conscience? Does man not have will and choice? Are you going to tell me that man is not totally involved in and approving of his own decisions?

But I expect you will be breaking even this down to as skinny a thread of logic as you can, eliminating all impinging facts, in order to blame God. I'm not saying that your position on freewill is quite the same as that of every other freewiller though your argument against it sounds the same. The reason I'm not saying that is because you have gone way beyond Scripture to produce your own doctrine of god, who can grow and improve and whom you have no problem claiming is subject to circumstances and principles beyond even him. Your potter has no hands. In another post you have unashamedly outed yourself, and our conversation is rapidly descending into uselessness. We have little common ground to reference.

 

[JAL]

...And around we go...

Let's try a slightly different tack then.

Start from that position in your thinking then. Does God have the absolute right to make something to use and then destroy? Establish that in your mind first.

No. I don't believe God sees Himself as having "every right" to behave unjustly. Such behavior would make Him a hypocrite, since He expects us to treat our neighbors with kindness and fairness.

Then consider that the person to be destroyed is not animate in the same sense that God is. As in Romans 9, some are made for one purpose, others for common use.

Let's take a look at Rom 9.

"21Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?"

Wow. That's all I count for? I'm just a dead lump of clay? If that's all I count for - you're right! God has every right to burn me in fire. However, why would God take such a low view of me? Why doesn't He count me as a living person, like Himself? Let's see:

"22What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction?"

Because I sinned in Adam! I already addressed this - we lost our rights at that time. NOW we count as little more than pieces of dead clay available to be cast into the fire. The problem here is that you're trying to read Romans 9 while hop-scotching over the first eight chapters.

This really isn't as complicated as self-deterministic people want it to be. Does not man know good from evil? Does man not have a conscience? Does man not have will and choice? Are you going to tell me that man is not totally involved in and approving of his own decisions?

Here you're merely paying lip service to free will, like R.C. Sproul does. In reality you believe in God's absolute sovereignty, not in human self-determination.

You have gone way beyond Scripture to produce your own doctrine of god, who can grow and improve....

...(1) On earth, Jesus grew, learned, and improved.
...(2) Jesus is God.
...(3) Ergo God can grow, learn, and improve.

I'm sorry you dislike what the Scripture teaches us about God. You've fashioned your own God WAY outside the boundaries of Scripture. In your view, for example, God is infinite in knowledge, immutably so, and thus CANNOT learn anything new. Jesus proved to the contrary.

Please return to Scripture. That would be a good start.

...and whom you have no problem claiming is subject to circumstances and principles beyond even him.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I mean, I think we can agree that your God didn't choose to exist, right? He didn't create Himself out of nothing, right? He is therefore subject to an existence beyond His control, right? Same is true of my God. Let not the pot call the kettle black.

Your potter has no hands. In another post you have unashamedly outed yourself, and our conversation is rapidly descending into uselessness. We have little common ground to reference.

Huh? I'm not getting you. YOUR potter has no hands. A physical God has hands. An immaterial Spirit could do NOTHING in a material world! This is one of the many contradictions and incoherences in the traditional view - so many of them that I haven't even had time to touch on all of them! Don't even get me started!

 

[GodsGrace101]

...And around we go...

Let's try a slightly different tack then.

Start from that position in your thinking then. Does God have the absolute right to make something to use and then destroy? Establish that in your mind first. Then consider that the person to be destroyed is not animate in the same sense that God is. As in Romans 9, some are made for one purpose, others for common use. In Ephesians 2, that person is already dead.

Isaiah 45:9,10
“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
those who are nothing but potsherds
among the potsherds on the ground.
Does the clay say to the potter,
‘What are you making?’
Does your work say,
‘The potter has no hands’?

This really isn't as complicated as self-deterministic people want it to be. Does not man know good from evil? Does man not have a conscience? Does man not have will and choice? Are you going to tell me that man is not totally involved in and approving of his own decisions?

But I expect you will be breaking even this down to as skinny a thread of logic as you can, eliminating all impinging facts, in order to blame God. I'm not saying that your position on freewill is quite the same as that of every other freewiller though your argument against it sounds the same. The reason I'm not saying that is because you have gone way beyond Scripture to produce your own doctrine of god, who can grow and improve and whom you have no problem claiming is subject to circumstances and principles beyond even him. Your potter has no hands. In another post you have unashamedly outed yourself, and our conversation is rapidly descending into uselessness. We have little common ground to reference.

Do you ever wonder why all Christians believe in free will except the reformed?
Throughout ALL of church history....

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle

Good morning
I spend a lot of time writing serious posts like the above.
Wouldn't it be right for you to reply and explain why the verses I posted are wrong?

I find that the reformed never reply to my verses.

IOW what did Jesus mean In Matthew 23:37 if not what i said?

Why does Rev 22:27 not prove that coming to God is not our choice?

You say, "I find that the reformed never reply to my verses."
I can't speak for the rest of the reformed, but, to me, your verses are no more proving of the point you take them to prove than the verses of any other of your ilk. I've been discouraged, as no doubt you too have, from time to time, from having argued so long with little visible result. It's like trying to wake the dead. You show choice and seem to think it means your brand of freewill. You show patience, mercy, even forbearance, and think it means God is unable until we are willing.

You say, "Yes, God's grace is open for all to take advantage of or deny."
I can't help but be skeptical of your use of the word, "open". All I see your statement to be saying, (discounting that use of "open"), is that God must wait for us to act first, and that, somehow, we, though dead in our sins, are able to obey the gospel, contrary to Romans 8.

You say, "We cannot add to God's grace in any way...God is full of grace - one cannot be more full than full."
Then, if God is all in all, and full of grace, are you saying mathematically there is nothing else? Unless that is how you are thinking, him being replete with Grace is not quite what we are talking about, (though in the logical end it may perhaps be argued that way). What we are talking about is the complete work of Grace, in producing regeneration, faith, repentance, the ability to obey, and even in creating our very will. You concede this in your statement here, yet somehow, like the others of your ilk, think that little extra ingredient in the soup, that of the person grasping for Christ, "accepting him", (or however you want to put it), is somehow not God's work —in fact, somehow mysteriously not work at all— but entirely of the freewill of man or it is not actual real choice. Again, I say, if it is not the work of God, it is not actual real choice. If one supposedly reaches for God apart from the work of God, it is a mockery of Grace.

You say, "The following verses about God's mercy (which is a part of His grace) tells that all are welcomed:"
Obvious enough. I suppose you posit these verses as proof, (since "all are welcomed"), that God has not chosen specific ones, predestining them for Heaven while rejecting the reprobates, unless by reason of their choice alone. You want it to show God's longing as though it means he has no preference, no agenda, no particular reason to create, but only general goodwill toward even the reprobate. In other words, you want him to be altogether as we would be were we without sin. You want him subject to circumstances he does not control.

You say, "Jerusalem wouldn't LET Jesus protect her."
Take a look at which "translations" use that terminology. That isn't even worthy of the term translation —it is "paraphrase" at best, and not a very good one. It says, "but you were not willing." God is not subject to anything but himself —not even to our omnipotent (as if !) wills.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No. I don't believe God sees Himself as having "every right" to behave unjustly. Such behavior would make Him a hypocrite, since He expects us to treat our neighbors with kindness and fairness.


Let's take a look at Rom 9.

"21Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?"

Wow. That's all I count for? I'm just a dead lump of clay? If that's all I count for - you're right! God has every right to burn me in fire. However, why would God take such a low view of me? Why doesn't He count me as a living person, like Himself? Let's see:

"22What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction?"

Because I sinned in Adam! I already addressed this - we lost our rights at that time. NOW we count as little more than pieces of dead clay available to be cast into the fire. The problem here is that you're trying to read Romans 9 while hop-scotching over the first eight chapters.


Here you're merely paying lip service to free will, like R.C. Sproul does. In reality you believe in God's absolute sovereignty, not in human self-determination.


...(1) On earth, Jesus grew, learned, and improved.
...(2) Jesus is God.
...(3) Ergo God can grow, learn, and improve.

I'm sorry you dislike what the Scripture teaches us about God. You've fashioned your own God WAY outside the boundaries of Scripture. In your view, for example, God is infinite in knowledge, immutably so, and thus CANNOT learn anything new. Jesus proved to the contrary.

Please return to Scripture. That would be a good start.


I'm not sure what you mean by that. I mean, I think we can agree that your God didn't choose to exist, right? He didn't create Himself out of nothing, right? He is therefore subject to an existence beyond His control, right? Same is true of my God. Let not the pot call the kettle black.


Huh? I'm not getting you. YOUR potter has no hands. A physical God has hands. An immaterial Spirit could do NOTHING in a material world! This is one of the many contradictions and incoherences in the traditional view - so many of them that I haven't even had time to touch on all of them! Don't even get me started!

Well, this has gone on long enough. To me, your precepts and self-determining trust in the vagaries of your own mind have put your thinking outside the realm of logic and scripture. I've had enough of this. God bless you, and I really do mean that.

 

[JAL]

Well, this has gone on long enough. To me, your precepts and self-determining trust in the vagaries of your own mind have put your thinking outside the realm of logic and scripture.

Said the poster who thinks an immutably holy God is "free" to behave unjustly and unkindly. Ok, Mark.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You say, "I find that the reformed never reply to my verses."
I can't speak for the rest of the reformed, but, to me, your verses are no more proving of the point you take them to prove than the verses of any other of your ilk. I've been discouraged, as no doubt you too have, from time to time, from having argued so long with little visible result. It's like trying to wake the dead. You show choice and seem to think it means your brand of freewill. You show patience, mercy, even forbearance, and think it means God is unable until we are willing.

You say, "Yes, God's grace is open for all to take advantage of or deny."
I can't help but be skeptical of your use of the word, "open". All I see your statement to be saying, (discounting that use of "open"), is that God must wait for us to act first, and that, somehow, we, though dead in our sins, are able to obey the gospel, contrary to Romans 8.

You say, "We cannot add to God's grace in any way...God is full of grace - one cannot be more full than full."
Then, if God is all in all, and full of grace, are you saying mathematically there is nothing else? Unless that is how you are thinking, him being replete with Grace is not quite what we are talking about, (though in the logical end it may perhaps be argued that way). What we are talking about is the complete work of Grace, in producing regeneration, faith, repentance, the ability to obey, and even in creating our very will. You concede this in your statement here, yet somehow, like the others of your ilk, think that little extra ingredient in the soup, that of the person grasping for Christ, "accepting him", (or however you want to put it), is somehow not God's work —in fact, somehow mysteriously not work at all— but entirely of the freewill of man or it is not actual real choice. Again, I say, if it is not the work of God, it is not actual real choice. If one supposedly reaches for God apart from the work of God, it is a mockery of Grace.

You say, "The following verses about God's mercy (which is a part of His grace) tells that all are welcomed:"
Obvious enough. I suppose you posit these verses as proof, (since "all are welcomed"), that God has not chosen specific ones, predestining them for Heaven while rejecting the reprobates, unless by reason of their choice alone. You want it to show God's longing as though it means he has no preference, no agenda, no particular reason to create, but only general goodwill toward even the reprobate. In other words, you want him to be altogether as we would be were we without sin. You want him subject to circumstances he does not control.

You say, "Jerusalem wouldn't LET Jesus protect her."
Take a look at which "translations" use that terminology. That isn't even worthy of the term translation —it is "paraphrase" at best, and not a very good one. It says, "but you were not willing." God is not subject to anything but himself —not even to our omnipotent (as if !) wills.

I don't know Mark.
You keep telling me what I think.
You were upset when @BNR32FAN did this to you and he apologized profusely.

So what are we talking to each other for?
I'm trying to get you to see that the god of calvinism is not loving, merciful or just.
They believe His grace is only for some when the bible clearly states that it's for everyone.
They do not want to believe in double predestination, although that's what calvinism teaches.

“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.”

source: John Calvin's Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5


I also maintain that Calvinis is heretical...please remember what heretical means,
that it is outside the scope of accepted mainline Christianity. IOW, no other denomination believes calvinism's doctrines except the reformed...whereas, instead, all of Christianity accepts other precepts of the Christian religion.

As to translations:
Which would you like?
I've used the NASB for about 40 years and have recently switched to the NLT.
It's not a paraphrase BTW.

What is the New Living Translation (NLT) Bible?

Your guide to the NLT Bible, we take a look at how the NLT was translated as well as answer your questions about the NLT.

www.eden.co.uk

A scholar friend of mine uses it !
Imagine that.
And other versions, of course, as I do.

Besides having many versions, I do use Biblehub.
So in our discussions you could state which bible you would prefer.
Just don't ask for the KJV because it's the most untrustworthy due to its age.
Yes, there have been so many new manuscripts found in the past 400 years.

I'll give you a rest, I think you sound tired.
Will reply to your post above later on...must go now.
You're a brother in Christ Mark. We're just talking here.

 

[Clare73]

You're funny.
Try to read verses with no preconceived idea.

And, perhaps, you could reply as to why you don't agree with me too. That would be nice.

Maybe you can't?

Non-responsive to request to exegete Ro 5:12-15. . .

 

[Mark Quayle]

AND WHAT IS THE GOOD NEWS?

That God has incredible mercy upon those helpless ones to whom he chose to show mercy. And that, not to just break even and have the penalty and stain of sin removed, but to be completed in him.

There is no good news in reformed theology....
except for those lucky ones that were chosen (by that theology).

You continue to show the same mindset, the same worldview, as the rest of the freewillers, that this life is about us. None of this is about us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why does it gall you?
Please explain why some go to hell.

Could you please reply to my posts instead of leaving them alone?

I just wrote you regarding this in the post just above.

By default they go to hell because they are at enmity with God. Why is not this eminently plain? Is this life about God, or about us? Do you define God according to what happens to us and by what we do? Just like with the universalist, I will tell you: You cannot build doctrine on your notion of what is love or justice, subjecting God to your judgement. The Bible teaches what it teaches. God is not tame; his mercy is severe. His kindness does not oppose his burning purity.

But you will skip right over this to claim I still have not answered your real question. I don't mean to be disparaging when I say that it is not a real question, but a construction in your mind. God knows my concepts are silly compared to the reality of God's love and justice. But to have to form a construction (libertarian "freewill") not mentioned in Scripture in order to justify what you can't quite put together that IS mentioned in Scripture is dangerous at best, when there is so much evidence in Scripture to oppose that construction.

Libertarian freewill introduces pure spontaneity on the part of Creatures; to be kind, that is self-contradictory. I will try to avoid calling it heresy, since you do the same with your notion that we teach that God is not loving.

 

[John Mullally]

Well, this has gone on long enough. To me, your precepts and self-determining trust in the vagaries of your own mind have put your thinking outside the realm of logic and scripture. I've had enough of this. God bless you, and I really do mean that.

We only know God from what the word says. Just because God can be Deterministic and you feel He is (which you package as first cause), doesn't mean He is. God being the potter and we being the clay shows that God created us with our unique characteristics. If you are going to say that means Determinism, then you have taken the analogy too far - as men, unlike clay pots, are animated. Calvinist Determinism is not clearly stated in scripture - it is postulated based on particular interpretation of some scriptures and ignorance of other scriptures. The fact that not all are saved and that God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), eliminates Calvinistic Determinism. Another argument: Per 1 John 4:16, God is love and 1 Corinthians 13:7 says that "Love hopes all things". Being that God hopes all things in his creation, Calvin puts himself outside the realm of logic and scripture when He says that God predestines some individuals to eternal torment before birth.

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

 

[zoidar]

You continue to show the same mindset, the same worldview, as the rest of the freewillers, that this life is about us. None of this is about us.

A one man show God created for himself, only for His own glory? That would be really selfish. I think one reason God created man was for man's own joy. Like having a child. You don't only get the child for your own joy, but so you can give the child a meaningful life, for the child's own joy's sake. That is love.

 

[Clare73]

No. I don't believe God sees Himself as having "every right" to behave unjustly. Such behavior would make Him a hypocrite, since He expects us to treat our neighbors with kindness and fairness.

Oh, boy!
God judges sin with more sin (Ro 1:24-28), does that make him a hypocrite?

Let's take a look at Rom 9.
"21Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?"
Wow. That's all I count for? I'm just a dead lump of clay? If that's all I count for - you're right! God has every right to burn me in fire. However, why would God take such a low view of me? Why doesn't He count me as a living person, like Himself? Let's see:
"22What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction?"
Because I sinned in Adam! I already addressed this - we lost our rights at that time. NOW we count as little more than pieces of dead clay available to be cast into the fire. The problem here is that you're trying to read Romans 9 while hop-scotching over the first eight chapters.
Here you're merely paying lip service to free will, like R.C. Sproul does.

In reality you believe in God's absolute sovereignty, not in human self-determination.
...(1) On earth, Jesus grew, learned, and improved.
...(2) Jesus is God.
...(3) Ergo God can grow, learn, and improve.

Jesus is God. . .and Jesus is man. . .the man Jesus grew, learned and improved.

That is some serious contra-Biblical theology there. . .filled up and covered over with spiritual ignorance.

 

[JAL]

Libertarian freewill introduces pure spontaneity on the part of Creatures; to be kind, that is self-contradictory.

Let's take a closer look. Arguably an act can be either:
....(A) Purely random/spontaneous/chaotic. Nothing reprehensible here.
....(B) Deterministic. Nothing reprehensible here.
....(C) Deliberated, weighed, or intentional in a manner meriting either praise or punishment. Libertarian freedom.
You deny C as self-contradictory. Yet you allow C for God. This is special pleading, and makes no sense. The logical contradiction is clearly on your side.

Sin-plus-retribution probably constitutes the number 1 topic of the entire Bible. The whole Bible makes sense, therefore, ONLY on the possibility of option C (libertarian freedom). You dismiss it as a logical construct:

But to have to form a construction (libertarian "freewill") not mentioned in Scripture in order to justify what you can't quite put together that IS mentioned in Scripture is dangerous at best....

Is such freedom a logical construct? Perhaps so, but it's a necessary one.

....when there is so much evidence in Scripture to oppose that construction.

The opposite is true. Overwhelmingly, the preponderance of biblical data is about sin-and-retribution. Only a few scattered passages are supportive of predestination, and I for one have provided an alternative reading of them.

 

[JAL]

Oh, boy!
God judges sin with more sin (Ro 1:24-28), does that make him a hypocrite?

I'm not exactly sure what conclusion you've drawn from that passage. I don't see anything that clearly supports your position.

Jesus is God. . .and Jesus is man. . .the man Jesus grew, learned and improved.

Correct. That man was 100% God - even if you disagree based on the theory of the Hypostatic Union.

That is some serious contra-Biblical theology there. . .filled up and covered over with spiritual ignorance.

Demonstrating what the Bible says is contra-biblical? Whatever, Clare.