Monday, September 22, 2008

The fox has ravaged the chickens and now wants Absolute Power over the henhouse, no questions asked

They came to bail-out the airlines, and I remained silent. They came to bail-out the automakers, and I looked the other way. They came to bail-out the banks, and I whimpered in a corner.

When the time came for me, there was no one left to bail me out.
Our nation's growing economic feudalism has harmed Americans for decades.

Today, the situation is worse than ever.

It's bad enough that our paper money has been only paper for so long. Add to that perpetually-increasing taxes and inflation, and the American taxpayer is oppressed. We are becoming little more than serfs working the land for our elitist political and economic overlords.

Stalin would be pleased.

Consider the latest real estate mortgage fiasco. Rather than letting lenders and borrowers suffer the natural consequences of their greed and stupidity (and the Liberal pressure to approve loans to people to whom they would not lend a dollar), the American government is forcing us free men -- at the point of a gun -- to pay for their foolishness.

Privatizing profits and socializing risk and loss, the American taxpayer must now finance corrupt CEO and Democratic operatives' bonuses. Where's the political party claiming to defend Liberty by defending us against government?

It's working feverishly to bind fast our chains.

The Muslim Brotherhood exhorts its coreligionists to:
“understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
That's from "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," a 1991 presentation by Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram, by way of Jihad Watch. Among the Brotherhood's members and friends are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

By the time our politicians are done, they're won't be anything left for Muslims to destroy.

That'll show 'em!

I've read of rumors that Russia and Muslim Oil want to make their currencies based on oil and gold the default for global commerce. China owns ever-increasing chunks of America.

Russia, China, and the global jihad will take advantage of this treachery.

From Spiegel Online:
The most breathtaking aspect about this week s crisis though is that the life raft -- which Washington had only previously used to bail out the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- is being handed out by a government whose party usually fights against any form of government intervention. The policy is anchored in its party platform.

"I fear the government has passed the point of no return" financial historian Ron Chernow told the New York Times. We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams.
Michelle Malkin has much more on this treasonous undermining of the American Republic:
The battle over the Mother of All Bailouts is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. A few fiscal conservatives like GOP Rep. Mike Pence are daring to stand up against this disaster. And where is GOP Minority Leader John Boehner? Chastising the Right not to oppose it because “This is not a time for ideological purity.”

What?! When is there a better time for conservative ideological purity than now — now that we face the most massive taxpayer rescue in American history spearheaded by a phenomenally wrong-headed, ChiCom-promoting, liberal Democrat-installing, Gore global warming alarmist?

Hell, yes, this is a time for “ideological purity.”

Ideological principle.

Ideological courage.

Here is GOP Rep. Mike Pence’s full statement opposing the bailout sent out over the weekend:
PENCE OPPOSES BUSH ADMINISTRATION BAILOUT PLAN

“There are no easy answers but there are alternatives to massive government spending”

WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Congressman Mike Pence released the following statement in response to the Bush Administration’s plan to bail out the financial market:

“Our financial markets are in turmoil and the Administration was right to call for decisive action to prevent further harm to our economy but nationalizing every bad mortgage in America is not the answer.

“The Administration’s request amounts to the largest corporate bailout in American history. Congress should act, but should act in a way that protects the integrity of our free market and protects the American taxpayer from more debt and higher taxes.

To have the freedom to succeed, we must preserve the freedom to fail. Any solution to our present crisis must preserve our essential economic freedom.

“Congress should delay consideration of any legislation until the facts and competing solutions can be fully debated, consider alternatives to massive government spending and figure out how to pay for the solution through budget cuts and reform instead of more debt or taxes.

“Congress must not hastily embrace a cure that may do more harm to our economy than the disease of bad debt

“Before any bailout is enacted, Congress must set itself on an unalterable path to truly overhaul these Government Sponsored Enterprises from the top down and hold those accountable, in and out of government, who drove them, and our financial sector, to the brink of bankruptcy. Some important work is already underway, but additional reforms are needed. Even now, we read that the Treasury Department is using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase many of these bad mortgages while it seeks the authority to purchase them all. Congress should also ensure that these GSEs can no longer pose a systemic risk to the entire economy while placing them on a brisk schedule to be fully private companies with no guarantee of taxpayer support in times of trouble. And Congress should immediately repeal the Affordable Housing Fund, which will actually siphon off capital from these under-capitalized entities, in order to fund left-wing, third party organizations.

“Next, Congress must consider all available options to put our nation’s economy back on its feet. There are no easy answers but there are alternatives to massive government spending.

“Indexing the Capital Gains tax to inflation (which the Treasury Department can do without any help from Congress), or suspending it for one year, would release an enormous amount of capitol into our economy. Passing an energy bill that lessens the price of gasoline at the pump through more domestic drilling, wind, solar, nuclear and conservation would bring relief to family budgets and create American jobs. Establishing an entitlement reform commission to develop bipartisan solutions to the crushing weight of entitlements would strengthen the American dollar.

“These and other alternatives to a massive federal bailout must be fully considered and debated before Congress acts.

“Finally, any new expenditure of taxpayer dollars should be paid for with fiscal discipline and reform. If Congress decides to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars on a corporate bailout, it must find budget savings to prevent that cost from being passed along to the American people.

“We must address this crisis with forethought, creativity and fiscal discipline. Protecting the American taxpayer from higher debt and taxes and renewing our belief in the power of the free market must be our guide.”
End all entitlements, corporate and private.

Here Michelle exposes the voracious Henry Paulson, who one week ago refused a bailout for Lehman Brothers and followed that immediately by offering a trillion of our dollars to "stabilize" this mess. He's a Democratic operative owned by the Chinese who appoints John Kerry and Barack Hussein Obama's henchmen (yet President Bush chose him!):
Both parties in Washington are about to screw us over on an unprecedented scale. They are threatening us with fiscal apocalypse if we don’t fork over $700 billion to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and allow him to dole it out to whomever he chooses in whatever amount he chooses — without public input or recourse. They are rushing like mad to cram this Mother of All Bailouts down our throats in the next 72-96 hours. And right there in the text of the proposal is this naked power grab: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
You know what Americans used to do to tyrants.

Now, we vote for them.

Tom Tancredo calls for common sense in dealing with Sharia here in America. Mike Pence calls for economic Liberty (and sanity).

Since both positions defend our God-given, unalienable rights, is there any chance Sarah Palin and her running mate will endorse these positions?

Saturday, September 20, 2008

You don't have to say, "Calvin," to promote his heresy

In response to comments from Stan:
The first insult you certainly intend is to use the term "god" (instead of "God")
Your god creates people for Hell. Your god did not pay for all men's sins. Your god does not work to save all men.

Your god is not the God of the Bible.
The second intended insult is the constant use of Calvin's name as if there is a connection on my end.
For not knowing Calvin, you sure argue Calvin.

You've defended at least Double Predestination, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace.
I have never referenced Calvin. I have always referenced Scripture.
You don't have to say, "Calvin," to promote his heresy.

You have taken one or two phrases, divorced them from their contexts, elevated your logic over the Word of God, and denied the clear testimony of the rest of Scripture.
You maintain an absolute, insistent denial that anyone can get their beliefs based on Scripture that differ from yours.
I've cited Scripture for everything I've said and I've asked you to do the same.

God speaks clearly.

If I am misrepresenting Scripture, show me from Scripture. If you cannot -- and if you cannot demonstrate from Scripture the truth of what you claim -- then I would suggest that some revising is in order.
In other words, you refuse to show gentleness and respect, demands from Peter (1 Peter 3:15).
"Gentleness and respect" is not a euphemism for "tolerate falsehood."

If you speak the words of God the way He intends them, we will agree.
Christ has reconciled and justified all. Those who reject His sacrifice for sins are on their own." Allow me a parallel. I go to the people to whom you owe large sums of money and I pay the debt. I don't simply make the payment available; I pay it. At this point, what do you owe? If those people came to you, then, and demanded payment, it wouldn't be fair or, worse, just. It would be criminal. Yet you are saying that all are justified and then arguing that some can still end up paying for the sin you say is paid for.
No, YHWH is saying that.

I quote the Word of God. You use flawed human analogies that end up contradicting His clear word.

Which pleases Him?

That you must resort to obviously flawed analogies demonstrates that your positions are without Scriptural support.

Your way has God holding people in Heaven against their will.
I read "justified" and understand it in its biblical term: "declared just before God". You cannot.
That's ironic.
Obviously you believe that a rebuke is far better than a dialog, that jumping in with both feet is better than actually trying to understand, and charity in all things is not a quality to practice.
That's charitable?
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that you won't understand me and I won't understand you. In deference to your strong distaste for biblical viewpoints that don't align with yours, I'll leave it at that.
Asking for you to produce Scriptural support for claims that blaspheme the Living God is not being mean.

You want me to agree with positions that contradict the clear Word of God.

I will not.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Who are the "right" Muslims?

M. Zuhdi Jasser argues here that those responsible for American security must work with Muslims who are not intent on waging jihad against us now or in the future, rather than the wolves in moderate's clothing with whom they've been engaged, groups like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc.

The only problem is, if Allah and his false prophet require the enslavement or murder of all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, what is the difference between "radical" Islam and Islam, between "Islamicists" and moderate Muslims?

The only Muslims of whom I'm aware who explicitly reject offensive jihad against, and oppression of, non-Muslims are the Ahmadiyya (persecuted by the devout) and Muslims Against Sharia.

While Mr. Jasser's piece rightly distinguishes between peaceful, apolitical Muslims and terrorists and their supporters, he offers no reliable method of distinguishing between those among his coreligionists who reject permanently the subjugation of and warfare against non-Muslims and those who will do as their god and prophet commanded and practiced.

Even worse, he offers up the false distinction between "radical" Islam and Islam, as if there's an original, peaceful version of the Great World Religion Hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists.

(On a side note, I wish that the President had been making a sly jab with that line; considering that he's defiled the White House with his iftar dinners and his female associates with hijabs, it seems the joke's on us).

There is no conflict between "Islamism" and Islam. To claim one is suicidally-ignorant or maliciously-deceitful. But I do agree with his last line. It is time to discern where Muslims in America stand.

Unfortunately, since our leadership appears clueless about jihad (or in collusion with its agents), time is not on our side.
John Welter, Chief of the anaheim Police Department recently said this to Washington Post reporter, Karen De Young:
"Most people are very ignorant of what the Muslim faith is about, including me," Welter said. "I've got a book on Muslims for dummies; I can't be an expert on all the religions and cults and cultures in the world. But what I can do is be an expert in behavior that terrorists engage in prior to an attack."
This type of naiveté illustrates the basic problem in our current approach to engagement of the Muslim community. Our current national security problem with terrorism is not about finding behavior. That is only the most basic part of law enforcement. At the core of our national counterterrorism strategy should be a solid understanding of the ideologies and state of mind which precedes the radicalization and the motivation of terrorist behaviors.

Our security agencies understood the ideology of communism as we protected our nation during the Cold War. We should do so with even more sophistication and clarity now when it comes to the relationship of political Islam (Islamism) to militant Islamism and how they both differ from the spiritual path of Islam. The longer we avoid the centrality of political Islam in this equation, the longer it is going to take to win the war of ideas and preserve our security.

It is time for a national education and discussion on the conflict between Islamism and Islam. It is time to learn where national Muslim organizations and more importantly where the greater American Muslim population finds itself in that conflict.

Wishes of Happiness and Prosperity

The Apostle Paul wrote:
"what can be known about God is plain . . . to them, because God has shown it . . . For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1).
"Yeha Noha"



Here's some information about the song:
AH-UH NAYAH OH-WA OH-WA
SHON-DAY OH-WA OH-WA
SHON-DAY CAN-NON NON NOHA (NOHA)

AH-UH NAYAH OH-WA OH-WA
SHON-DAY OH-WA OH-WA
SHON-DAY YEHA-NOHA (NOHA)

AH-UH NAYAY TOR-SHNA NENA-NAY-YAYAH
NENA-NAY-YAY YEHA-NOHA (NOHA)
AH-UH NAYAY TOR-SHNA NENA-NAY-YAYAH
YEHA-NOHA (NOHA)

NEE-YOH-WAH NEE-YOH
NEE-YOH-WAH NEE-YOH

AH-UH NAYAH OH-WA OH-WA
SHON-DAY OH-WA OH-WA
SHON-DAY CAN-NON NON NOHA (NOHA)

AH-UH NAYAH OH-WA OH-WA
SHON-DAY OH-WA OH-WA
SHON-DAY YEHA-NOHA (NOHA)

AH-UH NAYAY TOR-SHNA NENA-NAY-YAYAH
NENA-NAY-YAY YEHA-NOHA (NOHA)
AH-UH NAYAY TOR-SHNA NENA-NAY-YAYAH
YEHA-NOHA (NOHA)

The words above are lyrics to the international hit Yeha-Noha (Wishes Of Happiness And Prosperity). This chant is part of the Enemy Way Chant or called in the Navajo language Ndaa'. It is a healing song sung to cleanse and heal Navajos, often warriors who have come in contact with ghosts. Navajo veterans of the United States Armed Forces use this ceremony to purify themselves after returning from the service. The title which is appropriate, as mentioned is sung to cleanse and heal warriors, now often a family or loved one and to simply wish them happiness and prosperity.

The title itself is interesting. The 'h' in Yeha is actually pronounced with an 'n' so instead of saying Yeha-Noha, it is pronounced as if saying "Yena-Noha."

This song is only supposed to be sung by a medicine man of the Navajo Nation. Kee Chee Jake is a singer of traditional Navajo songs and his voice is also heard on track 2 of Sacred Spirit with the song: Tor-Cheney-Nahana (Winter Ceremony). His vocals is featured again in "Sacred Spirit II, More Chants And Dances Of The Native Americans", on track 6: Yane-Heja-Hee. Yane-Heja-Hee is also another winter ceremony song. Other Kee Chee Jake vocals are heard on "Navajo Songs From Canyon De Chelly," and "Brule One Nation: A Tribal Gathering Of Voices."

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

A Calvinist by any other name would offer heresy as rank

Some observations from a someone defending a god which "intends/determines/predestines" people for Hell:
At some point your "stand for the truth" stops being a stand for the truth and mere abrasiveness.

When you get to that point, your "stand" gets lost in the noise of your unkindness, and no one will hear your version of "the truth". I only point that out so that you can perhaps express your opinion in a way that doesn't turn people off before hearing it.
That is an important consideration, one that I keep in mind always. I do not want to offend anyone unnecessarily.

At the same time, Truth is abrasive.

What, specifically, did I write that was unkind? What did I write that was untrue? If Calvin's heresies preach a false christ, should not that be exposed and condemned? Will equivocations, euphemisms, or silence save anyone from error, especially someone entrenched in it? Does not calling a spade a "spade," force us to deal squarely with the issue?

With what language would you address genocide, pedophilia, rape, or slavery? Are those "alternative points-of-view," or vile abominations, offenses to God and Nature? How much more that which destroys men's souls?

What pejoratives would you use for Someone who, when pointing out stubborn, hellish heresy, called its proponents "children of the devil," "white-washed tombs," and "vipers"? With what language would you denounce someone wishing that those preaching observance of the Mosaic Law as necessary for salvation "would go the whole way and emasculate themselves"?

Have I written anything like that of you? Have I spoken of you in terms you use below?
If God knows something, it is certain. It cannot not happen. If He knows that "Tom" will reject Christ for his entire life, he will. So, if God knows something, it is already determined to happen. Nothing can change it. That doesn't require "cause and effect". Still, it is certain to happen. So when you admit that God knows who will be saved and who will not be saved, both are certain. Therefore, it is determined. Look, if God determines (predestines) who will be saved as you admit, then those who are not in that predestination are certain not to be saved ... and that is "double predestination". (Please note that it is not symmetrical. Salvation takes effort on God's part. Damnation does not.)
There again, you're making God's knowledge into His responsibility. You're going from "something must happen because God knows it will happen" to "God causes it to happen." That is not Biblical.

According to your logic, God knew that Mohammed was going to start raping little Aisha when she was nine, so He "determined (predestined)" that, right?

What does God say? He says to believers that He predestined believers to eternal life. What does He say about unbelievers here? Nothing.

You're assuming, using human logic, something God does not say. In fact, He says the opposite of what you're claiming: "The Lord is . . . patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

Using your logic, since God wishes it, no one will perish, correct?
Next, I need to point out a serious difference of opinion between you and me. "Does not YHWH intend Life for all people? Did not Christ die for and justify all people?" These are rhetorical questions from you that assume a "Yes" answer from me ... but I don't agree with them.
You don't agree with what God says.
Here's why. If God intended Life for all people, then all people would have Life. God always does what He intends (Psa. 135:6, etc.).
God created a perfect world. God gave His perfect law. Who ruined that?

Even after our wickedness, He became flesh and offered Himself up as the perfect sacrifice for all so that all might live.

God has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ's body on the cross. Nothing more needs to be done. "It is finished."

Regarding human evil, you have to say that since it happens, God intends/determines/predestines it all, for nothing happens against His will, right?

But what does God say? Sin, death, and Hell are our doing. God doesn't force people to love Him:
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not" (Matthew 23:37)!
Your theology makes the Word of God false, the death of Christ meaningless, and God Himself a liar.
If He does not, then He is not sovereign. Does God desire Life for all? Sure, but that isn't the same as "intend". That isn't the same as "His will". (And you are seriously misreading 2 Peter 3:9.) We know this, for example, because on one hand we have the certainty that God takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Eze. 33:11), but we also know that He certainly does damn them. That is, He has a desire to save them, but His will is to damn them.
That's a bit incoherent.

Using your logic, the god who forces people to believe in Him and causes them to commit the most heinous atrocities desires to save people but can't do it? Won't do it?

Is Calvin's god insane or just impotent?
The second question is "Did not Christ ... justify all people?" No, He did not. I know you would like to say that He did, but doing so will simply make God unjust. The best you can say is that He potentially justified all people, not actually. If you argue that He actually justified all people and then you agree that some people go to Hell, you have an unjust God who has received proper payment for sin and still exacts further payment for sin. That is, you have a God who damns justified people. That is not just, and that is not God.
Or, you could say only and all of what God says:
"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3)"

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (Romans 5).

"in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them . . ." (2 Corinthians).

"if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment . . ." (Hebrews 10).
Christ has reconciled and justified all. Those who reject His sacrifice for sins are on their own.
You are quite certain that there is no statement that God predestines who will not be saved. You are not satisfied with the undeniable fact that choosing who will be saved is also a choice of who will not.
So, you can't find any statement from God saying that He predestines people to Hell.

You're using fallible human logic which contradicts God. He does not say that He predestines people to Hell; He comforts Christians by assuring us that He predestined us to eternal life.

Here's an example of your error: In 1 John 4, God says to Christians that He, "sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Using your logic, that means that since Christ was the propitiation for our (believers) sins, He was not the propitiation for unbelievers' sins too, right?

But what does God say? "He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).
(Think about it like this for a moment. You arrive on a scene of a boat that capsized. Five people are in the water, drowning. You jump in to save them. You can only save so many before some of them drown. You choose, by whatever means you choose, to save as many as you can. It is unavoidable that by choosing to save some, the ones you didn't save were also chosen not to be saved.)
Your "logic" makes Christ a liar.

To make your analogy consistent with what God has revealed in His Word, He arrives on the scene to save everyone from drowning, but some say, "No, thanks, the water's fine. And who are you to say I need saving in the first place?"
Even when I hand you the Bible and point at Jude 1:4, you close your eyes and say, "Nope! That Scripture isn't in there!" You argue, "It doesn't say 'created by God for condemnation'." That doesn't solve your problem. It says they were already marked for condemnation before time.
First, I don't say it isn't there, I actually read it.

Second, as I noted in an earlier post, various translations (many done by Calvinists, and they've got no agenda, right?) render it as the condemnation being written beforehand.

That is not the same as God creating people for Hell (or denying salvation to many).
No one argues that God creates people for the sole purpose of condemnation. He creates people for His glory. Some of them display His glory in His salvation. Some of them display His glory in His power and wrath. None of them are made "for condemnation". But there are unavoidably some who were "marked out before time for this condemnation".
Following is the rest of Jude, beginning at verse 5. Note the reasons God gives for their condemnation. It was not His predetermining but their sin.

Note also that the condemnation for such people was set by God beforehand (prophesied by Enoch), not that God had created them for Hell:
". . . Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe . . . And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day . . . just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire . . .

"Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.

"these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively . . . they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.

"These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.

"It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

"These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.

"But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions."

"It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit . . . ."
My guest's comments, continued:
Look, it is your belief that I don't read my Bible.
I've never said that.

I've encouraged you to say only and all of what God says.
Fine. You can remain in your ignorance.
Personal attacks are almost always a sign that one realizes they've got nothing on which to stand.
It is your belief that I take my beliefs from a guy named Calvin, one whom I've never met or read.
I pointed out the last time you wrote this that you're defending the same ideas.

If you're not defending Calvin, why are you offended?
I don't know your god either.
Yes.
This one is a strange breed. He apparently has the capability to save all but chooses not to save all while choosing to save all but won't actually ... I don't know ... very strange.
Your confusion would end if you would just say what God says: Christ died for all, paid for all our sins, reconciled us all to His Father, and justified all men, but many reject that payment and so must pay out of their own pocket.
Maybe it's that in His sovereignty He is subservient to His creation -- they decide whether or not He will save them. He does all that He chooses to do and wills that all be saved but doesn't ... do ... that. Hmmm? He wills to pay for all sin at the cross and actually accomplishes this task but refuses to accept the payment His Son made on their behalf and damns some anyway.
No, they reject His payment for their sin. They damn themselves.

The facade crumbles. Do you realize you're mocking the Living God?
What??!! He knows who will come to Him and who will not and does nothing at all to change the list of who will not because He is either unable or unwilling while being both able and willing. So whose God is more capricious? Whose God is more malicious?
You call the death of Christ, "nothing." Vile.

The malice here is obvious, and it's coming from you.
I read my Bible and see an omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign Lord who always accomplishes what He intends.
Then you should say what He says.
Feel free to hate Calvin for whatever reasons you choose.
I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
But please, please, stop insulting the God that I love, the God that I find in the pages of my Bible, the God you blaspheme intentionally. If you cannot discuss the God of the Bible that I know with some respect, charity, and courtesy -- you know ... like the Bible commands (1 Peter 3:15), then I will have to stop giving you access to comment on my blog (you know ... like the Bible commands - 2 Thess. 3:14).)
Your god intends/determines/predestines people for Hell. It is impossible to blaspheme such a god, especially by telling the truth.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Clarifying that Calvin's god really is a malicious, capricious beast

Another note in an ongoing discussion here:
"I cannot conceive of why it is a problem for people to understand either double-predestination or its necessity."
Does not God "foreknow" all people? Does not YHWH intend Life for all people? Did not Christ die for and justify all people?

There is no problem "understanding" Double Predestination. The problem is accepting the idea since it is not found in Scripture [and contrary to the nature of the God revealed in the Bible].

Worse than that (that's bad enough!), it makes God out to be a capricious monster, which He is not.
"it is undeniably in Scripture."
No, only the statement that God predestines believers to eternal life is in the Bible.

If you want to say that God predestines people for Hell, you'll have to produce something from the Bible saying that . . . God predestines people to Hell.

And Arminianism doesn't cut it, either.
"It is not possible to retain an omniscient God and say, "Well, He doesn't know who will be saved . . . we have a God who knows in advance all who will be saved. Regardless of how you come to that conclusion, that would be "predestination"
You are confusing knowing the future for determining unalterably who will end up where.
"It is inescapable that if God is omniscient and knows all who will be saved, then He would also know all who will not be saved."
Again, knowing all things is not the same thing as causing them to occur.

Using your logic, Mohammed's slaughter is Calvin's god's will.
"if He doesn't intervene and change those who will not be saved"
YHWH did intervene. God did act. He has done EVERYTHING necessary for all to be saved, or is the death of His Son a small matter?
"If you argue that God knew but couldn't do anything about it, then you reject an omnipotent God. Which God do you reject?"
False dichotomy.

Instead, I prefer to say what God says:
"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (Romans 5).
The correspondence continues:
"Now, since you reject that God "predetermined their condemnation" (which, by the way, is exactly what Jude 1:4 says), what exactly do you believe?"
Condemned for their sin, not created by God for condemnation.

["ordained," "written into" and "designated" according to the 1611 King James, Modern King James, and English Standard Versions.]
"The question of Limited Atonement . . . if He intended the salvation of all, He quite frankly failed. If He intended the salvation of those who believe, He succeeded. Which do you believe?
So, you're saying that Jesus only intended to save some but died for everyone? That makes sense?

I believe what God says:
"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2).
Continuing the discussion:
"on "Irresistible Grace" . . . The point is that God has the capacity to call irresistibly. Given an omnipotent God, that seems like a given. What do you believe?"
So, your god can "call irresistibly," but chooses not to?

Are these clarifications really helping your argument?

You've got a god that chooses to save only a few based on a whim and calls only a few to faith.

I believe in the God of Scripture. He loves all. He desires that all should live. He calls all to salvation. He died for all people's sins. He has reconciled us all to Himself.

Many, however, choose to reject that gift, which means they've got to pay for their sins out of their own pocket.
"THe underlying belief here is that it is God's will that everyone be saved. The Bible says that God wants everyone to come to repentance, but it is clearly not His will . . . ."
That makes Calvin's god a sick monster and the Bible's God a liar.
"It is mandatory (biblically) that God's will occurs. It is impossible (especially given an omnipotent God) for God's will not to occur."
That is false, for He says not only that He is not willing that anyone should perish, but that many will.

That means also that your god wills genocide, slavery, and child rape.
"If it is God's will that all are saved, then we have only one of two possibilities. One is that all will be saved because God's will always occurs. The other is that some won't be saved ... and God is not omnipotent and the Bible's repeated claim that God always accomplishes what He wants to accomplish is a lie. Which do you believe?"
Neither. I believe God[, Who said that "I longed to gather you . . . but you were not willing," and, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever doesn't believe will be condemned."]
"You obviously despise what you call "Calvin's heresies". Are you aware that these beliefs 1) are not "Calvin's", but 2) come from the Bible? I myself have never read a word of Calvin. My beliefs are out of the Bible."
[. . .]

Double Predestination and Limited Atonement are Calvin's heresies. [Both are contrary to Scripture and, as you have demonstrated here, make God a monster.]

To attribute them to Christ only heaps blasphemy upon blasphemy.

Some clarifications don't really help

Offered in response to comments from a guest.
"I cannot conceive of why it is a problem for people to understand either double-predestination or its necessity."
Does not God "foreknow" all people? Does not YHWH intend Life for all people? Did not Christ die for and justify all people?

There is no problem "understanding" Double Predestination. The problem is accepting the idea since it is not found in Scripture.

Worse than that (that's bad enough!), it makes God out to be a capricious monster, which He is not.
"it is undeniably in Scripture."
No, only the statement that God predestines believers to eternal life is in the Bible.

If you want to say that God predestines people for Hell, you'll have to produce something from the Bible saying that . . . God predestines people to Hell.

And Arminianism doesn't cut it, either.
"It is not possible to retain an omniscient God and say, "Well, He doesn't know who will be saved . . . we have a God who knows in advance all who will be saved. Regardless of how you come to that conclusion, that would be "predestination"
You are confusing knowing the future for determining unalterably who will end up where.
"It is inescapable that if God is omniscient and knows all who will be saved, then He would also know all who will not be saved."
Again, knowing all things is not the same thing as causing them to occur.

Using your logic, Mohammed's slaughter is Calvin's god's will.
"if He doesn't intervene and change those who will not be saved"
YHWH did intervene. God did act. He has done EVERYTHING necessary for all to be saved, or is the death of His Son a small matter?
"If you argue that God knew but couldn't do anything about it, then you reject an omnipotent God. Which God do you reject?"
False dichotomy.

Instead, I prefer to say what God says:
"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" (Romans 5).
My guest continues:
Stan: "Now, since you reject that God "predetermined their condemnation" (which, by the way, is exactly what Jude 1:4 says), what exactly do you believe?"
Condemned for their sin, not created by God for condemnation.
Stan: "The question of Limited Atonement . . . if He intended the salvation of all, He quite frankly failed. If He intended the salvation of those who believe, He succeeded. Which do you believe?
So, you're saying that Jesus only intended to save some but died for everyone? That makes sense?

I believe what God says:
"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2).
My guest continues:
"on "Irresistible Grace" . . . The point is that God has the capacity to call irresistibly. Given an omnipotent God, that seems like a given. What do you believe?"
So, your god can "call irresistibly," but chooses not to?

Are these clarifications really helping your argument?

You've got a god that chooses to save only a few based on a whim and calls only a few to faith.

I believe in the God of Scripture. He loves all. He desires that all should live. He calls all to salvation. He died for all people's sins. He has reconciled us all to Himself.

Many, however, choose to reject that gift, which means they've got to pay for their sins out of their own pocket.
"THe underlying belief here is that it is God's will that everyone be saved. The Bible says that God wants everyone to come to repentance, but it is clearly not His will . . . ."
That makes Calvin's god a sick monster and the Bible's God a liar.
"It is mandatory (biblically) that God's will occurs. It is impossible (especially given an omnipotent God) for God's will not to occur."
That is false, for He says not only that He is not willing that anyone should perish, but that many will.

That means also that your god wills genocide, slavery, and child rape.
"If it is God's will that all are saved, then we have only one of two possibilities. One is that all will be saved because God's will always occurs. The other is that some won't be saved ... and God is not omnipotent and the Bible's repeated claim that God always accomplishes what He wants to accomplish is a lie. Which do you believe?"
Neither. I believe God.
Stan: "You obviously despise what you call "Calvin's heresies". Are you aware that these beliefs 1) are not "Calvin's", but 2) come from the Bible? I myself have never read a word of Calvin. My beliefs are out of the Bible."
Clearly not.

Double Predestination and Limited Atonement are Calvin's heresies.

To attribute them to God only heaps blasphemy upon blasphemy.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Apparently, Arminianism doesn't create people for Hell

But it still makes salvation dependent upon human works.

In response to a kind reader:
1. My apologies regarding Arminianism Point #1. That's what I get for using Wikipedia!

2. I would note that your statement, "God . . . predestined . . . those of whom . . . would have a faith response to the Gospel," is problematic. Where does He say that?

Peter 1 says that God foreknows believers. Doesn't He foreknow unbelievers too?

God does not say that we are "chosen" because He foresaw our "faith response." He does say that we are saved by God's grace through faith (which is the gift of God).

3. God refers more than once to His Book of Life, yet you don't believe it exists? The point I was making is that He warns us against removing our names from His Book, which indicates that the default position to which He predestined (!) us is Life.

[He] states clearly that His intention is that all should live.

4. With regard to "things we need to do," for salvation, if we must, "have faith, repent of sin, die to self, obey God, follow the Spirit, walk in manner worthy of the Gospel, etc.," then we are doomed.

God does say [in Paul's letter to the Church in Rome]:
"If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing."

"To the one who does not work, but trusts God Who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."

"we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law."
Salvation is entirely God's work. We play no part in it.

5. Faith in faith is a problem. The answer is Faith in Christ.

Works are important to Calvinists since by their works they prove to themselves and others that they are "chosen." [Since Calvin's god chose in its sovereignty to predestine many people to Hell and only a few to Heaven, how can one know until the end which is their fate?]

6. Your statement that, "Our works do not save us, but if we are saved then we will do good works," is true, but it contradicts your earlier statement that in our salvation there are things that we do alone.

7. As to whether or not a "genuine believer" can lose their salvation, what does God say?

In Hebrews 10, He warns us against Hell:
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
And in Hebrews 3:
"Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.

Saturday, September 06, 2008

The two (three!) most powerful political endorsements one can receive this election

Iran praises Obama and disparages McCain, from here:
"The flaw they see in Mr. Obama – which they don't admit – is that he is highly educated and very eloquent. What does he speak so eloquently for?! Mr. McCain, who considers himself such an expert in international politics, still says 'Czechoslovakia.'"

"Mr. Obama's perspective is more clear. Only yesterday, they transferred control of the Al-Anbar province to the Iraqi government, on the first day of Ramadan. This is something Mr. Obama has been saying. Mr. Obama has said several times: 'Al-Qaida operates in 80 countries, but we got ourselves entangled in Iraq. Our presence in Iraq is what led al-Qaida to begin operating there.'"

Asked about Biden, Fardanesh called him "a very respectable man. He has a good reputation, and he is respectable and healthy. He has been in the Senate for 36 years, since he was 29. They are more knowledgeable in foreign affairs."
Muslims fear McCain-Palin, from here:
The events and speeches at the Republican Party convention in Minnesota, which endorsed the candidacy of Arizona Senator John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, were given special attention in the Arab media, as commentators voiced fears that a McCain administration would pursue, perhaps more belligerently, the path of the current government.

As a rule, Arab governments in the region prefer to refrain from showing their preferences in U.S. elections, but the media, including the state-controlled TV and press, have made no secret of their desire to see a new leadership in Washington that is run by Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

While talking heads have said they did not expect either administration to be more sympathetic to the Arab and Muslim causes, many are now saying that Obama would be the "lesser of two evils" [...].

As far as those Arabs and Muslims, who are looking forward to the end of the Bush era are concerned, that change may very well be for the worse. Some have indeed expressed that the prospect of a McCain-Palin victory is nothing less than chilling.
In related news, the devil himself came out this week in support of Obama-Biden, giving the Democratic ticket a five-point bump among liberals in the latest polls.

When asked about the surprise announcement, President Bush praised the advance of democracy.

(Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Muslims have enshrined Shari'a in their nations' constitutions.)

Barack Hussein Obama is friend to an advisor of, and a propagandist for, the jihad against us

I've written a few posts critical of Barack Hussein Obama, noting -- besides his socialism and deceitfulness -- his troublesome ties to Islam.

Here's another one: Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, an advisor to Saudi prince Al-Walid, apparently helped Obama get into Harvard.

In what other ways has Muslim influence aided him? And what does Obama owe them?
The man who said white people deserve -- and want -- to have their ears and noses cut off, and that Muslims shouldn't worry, "because God wants you to do it" . . . Obama Had Close Ties to Top Saudi Adviser at Early Age . . . .

New evidence has emerged that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was closely associated as early as age 25 to a key adviser to a Saudi billionaire who had mentored the founding members of the Black Panthers.

In a videotaped interview this year on New York’s all news cable channel NY1, a prominent African-American businessman and political figure made the curious disclosures about Obama.

Percy Sutton, the former borough president of Manhattan off-handedly revealed the unusual circumstances about his first encounter with the young Obama.

“I was introduced to (Obama) by a friend who was raising money for him,” Sutton told NY1 city hall reporter Dominic Carter.

“The friend’s name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas,” Sutton said. “He is the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men . . . told me about Obama.”

[. . .]

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax from his home in San Antonio, Texas, al-Mansour said he would not comment specifically on the statement by Percy Sutton because he was afraid anything he said would get “distorted.”

“I was determined I was never going to be in that situation,” he said. “Bloggers are saying this is the new Rev. Wright — in drag! — and he is a nationalist, racist, and worse than Rev. Wright. So any statement that I made would only further this activity which is not in the interest of Barack.”

But in the lengthy interview, al-Mansour confirmed that he frequently spoke on university campuses, including Columbia, where Percy Sutton suggested he met Obama in the late 1980s, and confirmed his close relationship with Prince Alwaleed.
This good prince is the devil who blamed America for 9/11, upon which Rudy Giuliani rightly threw his money back in his face.

So, Obama is friend to an advisor of a financier of, and propagandist for, the jihad against us.

Misdirected Muslim Madness

Muslims are "outraged" at the removal of a genocidal religious statement soliciting Muslim's murdering Jews to hasten the end of the world.

Wait a minute.  They're upset that the verse was removed, but not at its contents?

Progress is being made, by way of Jihad Watch:
"The provost said that 'the passage cited is truly despicable.... We did some investigations and have ordered the passage to be removed.'

But the Muslim Student Union the dominant Muslim student group at USC accused the university of censorship calling the take-down 'unprecedented and unconscionable.' 'We are outraged at the censorship of a complete religious and classic text without consulting us or any religious authority first ' the group said in the statement. 'The compendium is now incomplete. There are verses in many religious texts be it the Torah or the New Testament that when taken out of context can be taken as offensive.'
The key point there is that in order for those Biblical passages to be offensive, they must be taken out-of-context. In order for Muhammad's words to offend, they need only to be . . . read.
Supporters of the move defend the provost s actions. 'It may be part of the religious canon but that doesn t make them less hateful ' said David Horowitz who has lobbied a number of schools to remove the 'hadiths of hate ' as he calls them from their websites. Horowitz says this is the first he s heard of a university taking down documents after community members complained."
"religious authority"? Do they mean the Pope?

Here's my response left at the Daily Trojan and the U.S. News and World Report:
Muslims are outraged at having their anti-Semitic and genocidal texts removed? Why are they not offended at what their prophet commanded and practiced?

Where is the public's outrage at advocates for genocide and anti-Semitism (and slavery, rape, pedophilia, mutilation, and offensive warfare) [in Allah's name]?

I commend the provost for his courage in calling a spade a "spade." The passages removed are a good start. However, Allah's commands for the slavery and murder of all who refuse conversion are found throughout Qur'an and Sunnah.

Here are some other passages offensive to [all] non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls:
"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror . . . ’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

“. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . " (Qur'an 4:34).

“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will,” (Qur'an 2:223).

"Allah's Apostle said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460).

“Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Qur'an 2:282).

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Narrated 'Aisha [Mohammed's six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"]: 'Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, so uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).
Such vile, wretched, hateful filth has no place in a free and decent society. Neither does anyone who defends it.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Some thoughts on Arminianism

I received a kind note today.

Here is most of my reply:
. . . Theologically, I try to say only what God says.

You are right in saying that Calvinism's bad theology causes them to trash Scripture. That's why I made the point that we should remain silent where God does.

. . . I have a few thoughts regarding Arminianism:
1. God from all eternity predestined to eternal life those of whom He foresaw that they would remain steadfast in faith to their end.
God says that He predestined believers to eternal life. I think that is the place we should stop.

Calvin's gross error was [concluding] that since God predestines people to Heaven, He must also predestine people to Hell, even though Scripture does not say this!

Interestingly, God speaks of those who sin against Him being "blotted out" of "My book" in Exodus, while in Revelation, Christ speaks of those remaining faithful to Him not having their names "blotted out" of the Book of Life.

God's intention is for all to have eternal life. You can't have a name blotted out of a Book unless it's already in it.
2. Christ died for all mankind, not only for the elect.
Absolutely!
3. Man cooperates in his conversion by free will.
Since the Scriptures speak of us being "dead" in our sins, faith as the gift of God, and our utterly sinful nature, I do not believe that we can choose Him or contribute anything to our salvation.

John 1 speaks of believers being born, "not of human will," but, "born of God."
4. Man may resist divine grace.
Yes! Jesus lamented over Jerusalem, ". . . I longed to gather you . . . but you were not willing."
5. Man may fall from divine grace.
The Scriptures warn believers against falling away from the faith into unbelief (which rejects God's grace).

I think the place where the "once saved, always saved" crowd errs is in thinking that because Christ will not allow us to be taken from Him, we cannot take ourselves away (through unbelief).

Since Scripture states both, we should too.

Calvinists aren't the only people who hate me. I've got Muslims and Darwinists after me, too.

Monday, September 01, 2008

Romans 9 shows God's compassion and mercy, not His capriciousness and malice

In response to courteous comments here.
. . . God being malicious is something that you've drawn out of a Calvinist view, not Calvinists.
I don't think I've written that Calvinism says God is malicious and capricious.

Several of Calvinism's doctrines contradict the Word of Christ in ways that make its god malicious and capricious.

Attributing such characteristics and attitudes to YHWH blasphemes Him.
God works on a scale of just to merciful, unjust or malice don't enter his character at all.
YHWH is fully both at the same time. In Christ's body on the cross, He punished all men's sins and had mercy on all.

Calvinism denies that mercy to many.
I don't think the parable of the sower has anything to do with predestination.
The Parable of the Sower is relevant because it doesn't show God creating bad soil or never sending the Word to some (both Calvinist heresies).

It shows that the responsibility for unbelief is ours.
. . . Romans 9 especially verses 14-24 . . . clouds the issue of God's will in choosing and man's role in accepting. As well as whether people can actually be destined for Hell. I'm still considering my thoughts on this passage, but when considering how God chooses I think it's essential to include this passage.
God says:
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide" (John 15:16),

". . . God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32).

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18).

"he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

"by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2: 8 and 9).

"For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28).

"He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).

"in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them . . ." (2 Corinthians 5:19).

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you kill the prophets and stone to death those sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you were not willing" (Matthew 23:37)!
What does Romans 9 say? Paul shows that despite Israel's rejection, God's promises are sure and are received by faith.

Regarding Jacob and Esau, Paul writes, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call . . ." (Romans 9:11).

Paul's point here is not that God hates (or rejects) people just because He chooses to do so (Calvinism's Double Predestination), it is that God's blessings depend on His mercy and are received by faith, not by works.

Being the older and favored son, Esau was to receive his father Isaac's blessing. Isaac asks Esau to hunt and prepare a "delicious meal," after which he would bless him. While Esau is out obeying his father, Jacob's mom, having overheard their plans, conspires with Jacob to deceive Isaac into obtaining the blessing.

So, the one who received the promise, Jacob, did not deserve it. Like Jacob, we receive the Promise not because we deserve it (we deserve condemnation!), but because of His mercy.

Romans 9 also mentions Pharaoh. Is the fact that God says of him, "I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth" (Romans 9:17) evidence of His creating people for destruction? Is Paul's statement that God hardens whom He hardens proof of this?

Paul does not state that the hardening God did was His "sovereign choice" (that subtitle in the ESV and NIV is human commentary, not Divine revelation) to condemn someone; rather, he declares that its purpose was to show His power to the entire world.

Does God's patience with "objects of wrath prepared for destruction" (Romans 9:22) mean that He created people for Hell? No, since we believers are by nature, "objects of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3).

And God is patient with those "objects of wrath" in order that they too might repent. Paul writes, "do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4).

Calvinism denies God's kindness, forbearance, and patience to many.

Most importantly, Paul shows us that the reason Israel is rejected is not because of "God's sovereign choice," because of its unbelief, through which they reject Christ:
. . . Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works" (Romans 9:30-32).