A Good Work?

[Guest]

>>de> Ok, so let me get this straight; you believe that men were not changed in any way by the fall?????
>>de> Do you think that you & I bear any guilt for the actions of Adam?


Well, Adam was called good, then he sinned even though he was made by God with the ability to sin he was called good. It was not until Adam disobeyed God that God pronounced the curse. Since we are born of Adam we all sin.

I don't bear Adam's sin. I am judged for my own sin. I can't remember the verse that states this.

DE> There's a reason for that .
DE> Let's think about this idea for a minute. What is your definition of sin? Does it have something to do with choosing to do something that you know is wrong? Are you aware of the billions of people who died before having the ability to make moral decisions? Did they all go to heaven or hell? If they all went to hell, isn't that a bit unfair to them, since they didn't sin (hint - a Calvinist can answer this one ? If they went to heaven, how did they get there? Since they didn't sin, then they didn't need a Savior. So most of the people in heaven got there without needing Jesus' help.

Here is the quote:
Ezekiel 18: 17 He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. 21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD . Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.

There you go, man dies for his own sin. And to answer the young/babies who die. All men die, even saved ones! Have you met a Christian yet from the past that didn't die? There is another death than the physical one. The Bible speaks of a time when someone is old enough to choose good over evil.

DE> The only way to unravel this one is the historic understanding of original sin. Adam represented us in his sin. We were judged guilty because he was our perfect representative, just a Jesus was. Both the first and second Adam did something that affects us by proxy - they both becoime our representative. I'll tell you more aout it if you are interested.

Where does it say that in those terms in the Bible? If your referring to Romans 5, then lets look at verse 18, Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. So justification has come to ALL MEN.

DE> It is impossible to have faith in God without loving Him, and vice versa. That is the difference between Christians and demons; both believe in the existence of God, but demons have no love for Him. "Faith/belief" includes believing in the existence of God, believing what He says, and trusting Him. Therefore, the "works" think is still a red herring. The point is obedience. Believing in God is obedience to God's commandment. Disbelief is contrary to God's commandment.

Your quote to Romans 8 that they "cannot please God" refers to the flesh. God can love someone and not be pleased with them. Ever read about David? Did he ever do anything that did not please God? If someone repents of thier sin it is because God is drawing them. Christ draws all men unto Himself. Some people resist this calling out of their own free will, others repent of their sins and have faith in God.

What else do you think Paul meant here:
Gal 4:8 But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?

Paul seems to be making a contrast, is he saying there was a time when God didn't know someone? Before they knew God, or rather God knew them, they served those who are by nature not gods.

What Paul is pointing out is not individual election to salvation. He is speaking about Isreal (Jacob) being His chosen people and Edom (Esau) are not. Look up the quote Paul used and see. Otherwise, if it was about election to salvation then all of Jacobs descendants were saved and all Esau's were lost. Furthurmore it says "the older will serve the younger". Did this literally happen between the two people Jacob and Esau?

DE> Yes!!!! That is the point of an analogy; that both halves are true. Had the part about the actual people been false, the whole analogy would have been false. Both statements - about the individuals and about the nations - are true. God sovereignly chose both the person Jacob and the nation Israel.

I don't see what your are getting at. If the analogy is about individual people, then it is false because not all individual people in Israel were saved and not all non-Israel people were condemned. It speaks about Christ coming from Israel. The Savior came from (physically) God's people, the remant/patriarcs. It speaks about the choices God made to bring His salvation to all men. (11:32) That's why the promise was made to Abraham and to his "seed" who is one person, Christ. It's not speaking about individual election to salvation.

What do you make of this:
2Tim 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work.

DE> As Paul is admonishing Timothy, he lists many qualities and behaviors that will keep Timothy from becoming ineffective and unproductive (2 Pet 1). Unproductive vessels in God's house will still serve Him, if only as chanber pots. But Paul charges Timothy to refine Himself, to strive to become a pot worthy of more noble use.

Not only does it say "if anyone clensens himself" it says "sanctified and useful for the master". Are you saying that unsanctified people that are useless (disobedient) to the master are saved?

DE> You can try to combine these two verses, but the contexts are different. That is the beauty of Systematic theology - you pay attention to such things. In Timothy, Christians are in view. In this part of Romans, Paul is speaking of the effect of the coming of the Messiah on Israel. You are familiar with the remnant? Whenever Israel went apostate, God chose a remnant that He would kep faithful to Himself.

DE> Now, the Apostles had to offer each blessing of the gospel first to the Jews, and then the Gentiles. Of course, most Jews rejected the Messiah, because they were not true Israelites. And remember that the Jews considered themselves the Owed people, not the Chosed people, so they got really angry whenever it looked like God was moving among any Gentile pigs.

DE> So Paul hopes that his ministry to the Gentiles will excite more of his people to belief. In this way. more mercy is offered to all Israel.

DE> LEt me know if that is unclear.

So Paul has the power to give more mercy to all Israel? And to excite them to belief? I thougt God did this? Is God's arm to short to save without Paul's help?

Mercy has come to all, but not all recieve it becuse they loved the darkness rather than the light. God has the power to enlighten man and let him make his own eternal choice. This is not "too hard" for God to do.

DE> Nature itself proclaims God's divine nature, and those who refuse that call are guilty. This is one call. The scriptures contain another call - the gospel. But only the call of the HS can change a man's heart. All men are called by nature. Many men are called by the gospel, but only those whom the HS calls are the chosen.

So your theology claims.
That's what you have to say, because it shows your error. So you've got to say "call doesn't mean call unless my theology says it does". You apply this arbitrarily to passages that don't agree with your theology.

I'll give you just one of many possible examples:

Isaih 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:
My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
2He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.
3"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
4What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?
5And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard:
I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned;
And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.
6I will lay it waste;
It shall not be pruned or dug,
But there shall come up briers and thorns.
I will also command the clouds
That they rain no rain on it."
7For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel,
And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant.
He looked for justice, but behold, oppression;
For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.

Clearly God did everything He could but it (Israel) did not yeild justice and righteousness. Why couldn't God just make them do it? Because it said He did everything He could. But they rejected Him (Matt 23:37).

God would not make such statements if they weren't true.

de> The only possible conclusion is that God gives saving faith to the elect, and withholds it from the reprobate.

Sure, but what makes someone "elect" and another "reprobate"?

DE> Exactly - you say that a man is capable, without any grace from God, of accepting God's call - of exercising saving faith. I say that it is impossible for a man to be saved apart from the grace of God. It is impossible for a man to believe in God without God's grace.

I didn't say that. As a matter of fact I said otherwise and pointed to this:

Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest,

Man had a part in this, did he not?

You see, Paul is not a calvinist. He said "fear". But what do we have to fear if we are the elect with unconditional security? Paul says fear, stand by faith or be cut off. No mention of God doing the fearing, believing or having faith for man. This is conditional "if you continue" (v22).

DE> So what exactly is it that Paul is warning us to fear? Losing our salvation? Jesus said that noone could snatch us out of His hand. Paul says that faith is a gift from God. What exactly do you fear, and how would what you fear come to pass?

That's what Paul said, you can believe it, or not. Paul says that Grace (aquired through faith) is a gift from God. You can't recieve Grace without faith. No one can snatch a saved person, but a saved person can fail to continue in fatih and be cut off, just as the non-remant were cut off and are no longer His people. Remember that we don't have eternal life, eternal life is in God's Son (1 John 5:9-12), and if we are in Christ then we are partakers in eternal life. It's just as the Jews thought they deserved salvation because they were Jews. If someone thinks they deserve salvation but don't remain in Christ, they are cut off an burned. (John 15:2-6)

DE> Faith is a gift from God. Exactly what are you called on to do that is not smething that God gives you? Are you called on to come up with your own faith? DO you have to decide something or have some faith that God does not give you? How is it that you are able to have faith in God, and someone else is not?

There is nothing extra we must do. God offers us Grace, if we reject it we are not saved, if we combine it with faith we are saved. Read the Hebrews 4 quote I posted above.

As far as your Rom 6:23 comment. It says eternal life is in Christ. I agree with that. It's not in us, but Christ. As long as we remain in Him (John 15:2-6). So as long as we are in the body (of Christ) we have eternal life in Christ. Grace being a gift in no way means that it does not need to be recieved. That's how Grace can bring salvation to all men (Titus 2:11) but not all men are saved. Many reject it.

DE> What about God's gifts and His call being irrevocable? How are you able to receive God's grace and the next person not able to receive God's grace? Are you just a better person? Did you just make better choices? Are you just more Godly? If you are in some way better than the unsaved person, then you have earned your salvation in some way, and therefore you have something about which to boast. You have, in fact, done something that makes you more worthy of salvation than the next man.

His gifts and calling are to His Son and to anyone who abides in His Son.
The rest I have already answered and you keep asking the same question. Read Romans 4 again. You keep trying to add your theology in here. Faith in God is not works! If I have faith I am saved, but faith is not a work and doesn't make me any better than anyone else! As a matter of fact, the reason I need to be saved is bacuse I am a sinner who cannot save myself and would be condemned without the Grace of God!

[Guest]

De,
You can't convince me of something that:

1. Contradicts scripture
2. Relys on mythology mixed with Christianity
3. Is a doctrine of men

The entire Bible teaches that God is not the God of calvinism. If calvinism is true then the Bible contradicts itself many times.

It is a logical theology if taken to it's logical conclusion (that God is the author of evil and God does want people to perish). But this is not Jesus's Father.

[Guest]

de,

I am glad you finally engaged me directly, and I really appreciate the fact that you interacted with my actual statements—though your responses were not exactly in the form of counter-arguments, but rather, sarcastic remarks and poorly-informed, undocumented assertions about the history of doctrine. I am about to travel for a few days, after which I would like to respond to you point-by-point. In the meantime, I would like to inform you about the non-Calvinist teachings of the church before Augustine. As I do not like to make undocumented assertions, I will affix below actual quotations from the fathers of the first four centuries on the matter of free will and predestination (the foundational issues in the controversy).

Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva, recognized that his doctrine of unconditional election was at odds with the fathers. In commenting on Romans 11:2, “God hath not cast away his people whom he foreknew,” Beza wrote: “Nor are we on any account to listen to the Fathers, who refer this to faith foreseen.”

The fathers clearly taught (as Arminius later did) that election was based on God's foresight of future faith in the individuals. This is anathema to the Calvinist, because it still makes election conditional, rather than unconditional. Beza (like Calvin before him) knew that his own doctrines did not predate Augustine in church history. How did he know this? Perhaps he read what the fathers wrote on this. Have you? Let me make it easy for you by quoting them below:


100-165 AD : Justin Martyr
“God, wishing men and angels to follow his will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably (wicked), but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God.” (Dialogue CXLi )

100-165 AD : Justin Martyr
“We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestinated that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.” (First Apology ch.43 )

[About the year 180, Florinus had affirmed that God is the author of sin, which notion was immediately attacked by Ireneaus, who published a discourse entitled: “God, not the Author of Sin.” Florinus’ doctrine reappeared in another form later in Manichaeism, and was always considered to be a dangerous heresy by the early fathers of the church.]

130-200 AD : Irenaeus
“This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God...And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice...If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?” (Against Heresies XXXVII )

150-190 AD : Athenagoras
“men...have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless)...”(Embassy for Christians XXIV )

150-200 AD : Clement of Alexandria
“Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.” (Miscellanies, book 1, ch.17)

154-222 AD : Bardaisan of Syria
“How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation? —if man had been made so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him...And how in that case, would man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman...they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures.” (Fragments )

155-225 AD : Tertullian
“I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature.” (Against Marcion, Book II ch.5 )

185-254 AD : Origin
“This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition.” (De Principiis, Preface )

185-254 AD : Origin
“There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will.” (De Principiis, Book 3, ch.1 )

250-300 AD : Archelaus
“There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he chooses.” (Disputation with Manes, secs.32,33 )

260-315 AD : Methodius
“Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, discourse 8, chapter 16 )

312-386 AD : Cyril of Jerusalem
“The soul is self-governed: and though the Devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator by necessity then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou wert a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness; since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.” (Lecture IV 18 )

347-407 AD : John Chrysostom
“All is in God’s power, but so that our free-will is not lost...it depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help...It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews, Homily 12 )

So far as I am aware, de, you are the only Calvinist I have had the pleasure of debating, who did not acknowledge the obvious fact that his doctrines began with Augistine. I have debated Calvinist scholars publicly, and rather than claiming that these views were taught before Augustine, they acknowledge (as all informed people do) that they did originate with Augustine, but they claim that the 400 years of church history before Augustine were too short a period of time for the early church to sort these things out because they were preoccuplied with disputes about Christology.

You are the first I have met who has not been willing to admit to what all church historians know about this. You have indicated (without documentation) that the novelties of Calvinistic doctrine were taught somewhat consistently for "thousands of years," interrupted only by occasional outbreaks of "Arianism" (I think you meant Arminianism, since no one on this forum is arguing for Arianism).

I would like to clarify that this is not a Calvary Chapel website. I did indeed attend Calvary Chapel in the seventies and early eighties, but now, more than 20 years later, there would not be a Calvary Chapel willing to claim me. In the years I attended Calvary, the Calvinism issue was not discussed. I didn't even know where Chuck Smith stood on it. I was raised in a mildly-Calvinistic Baptist church, and became intimately acquainted with Calvinism by reading the Puritans, Spurgeon, Packer, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, Douglas Wilson, and many others. I have studied Calvinism from these authors for over twenty years. I am not sure how long you have studied it, or from whom.

In addition to reading the theologians, I have also read the Bible. You said to let you know when I have read through it "several times seventy" times. I can say right now, that I won't be getting through it that many times in my lifetime (though George Mueller read through the Bible four times a year, and had read through over 100 times by the time he was seventy. He lived to be 93, so he may have gotten through it at least twice-seventy times). I have only read through the Bible somewhere between thirty and forty times, so there are still a lot of things I don't yet understand. However, I have reason to believe that I am making some progress in my understanding, and have no reason to believe that I am "a whit behind the chiefest" of the modern Calvinist teachers in this respect.

My rejection of Calvinism is connected to my acceptance of sola scriptura as a principle of theological inquiry. I also believe in the Reformation principle of the perpiscuity of scripture, meaning that the average intelligent man can understand the scriptures for himself by studying them. I have read the theologians and commentators, as you apparently have, but I have subjected their claims to the test of the scriptures, so that I have not accepted every word they write.

You asked why I teach if I believe in sola scriptura and the perpiscuity of scripture (that's not the term you used, but it is the one you meant). My answer is that I teach because, like every gift of the Spirit, the gift of teaching can be helpful. That is also why I read books by and listen to other teachers. To say that a teacher is helpful, however, is not to say that he is infallible. No one can accuse me of claiming infallibility for my views. When we hear a man speak or write, we then have the responsibility of testing all things and holding fast to that which is good (1 Thess.5:21). This is what the Bereans did (Acts 17:11). They are not called "arrogant", but "noble" (KJV) or "fair-minded" (NKJV), because they tested even Paul's preaching by scripture.

One thing you did not do in your answers to me was to actually exegete any scripture or interact with those which I cited (I interacted with those that you cited). Could I ask you to do me a favor? Would you please write back and give me two or three specific scriptures that plainly teach (or even imply) the following doctrines:

1. Babies are born guilty of Adam's sin
2. Christ did not die for all men
3. There are people that God does not want to see saved
4. Election to salvation is unconditional (i.e., does not require prior faith)
5. Because of His meticulous providence, God's will is always done
6. If someone falls away from Christ, we can be sure he was never saved
7. God has predetermined which individuals will believe and which will not

I could ask more, but seven is a good number, and this should keep you busy enough. Let me specifically request that the scriptures you give actually say that these things are true, and cannot be as justly used in support of a doctrine contrary to yours.

I eagerly look forward to your reply.

[Guest]

De,
You can't convince me of something that:

1. Contradicts scripture
2. Relys on mythology mixed with Christianity
3. Is a doctrine of men

The entire Bible teaches that God is not the God of calvinism. If calvinism is true then the Bible contradicts itself many times.

It is a logical theology if taken to it's logical conclusion (that God is the author of evil and God does want people to perish). But this is not Jesus's Father.

Well, I'm not exactly sure what statement of mine this is in reference to, but I catch the drift. I imagine that you object to the assertion that God has predestined some to salvation and some to damnation since before the creation, and that there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do about that. Or that everything that happens has been preordained by God, which is another say of saying the same thing.

You will at some point need to answer the question of why the books of Solomon are included in the bible, if God does not intend us to use what wisdom we as men can muster. The only systematic doctrines that we have are "men's doctrines," because the bible is not a systematic theology textbook. It is arranged in a different manner. If you want to understand God thoughts, you have to think them after Him - you have to gather the whole counsel of God on an issue - every time He speaks on that topic - and consider all of the data. Then try to understand the whole topic. Obviously, any conclusion that you draw will be in your own words - thus it is a doctrine of man. That does not make it wrong, just not infallible. It sould be judged as to its conformity with the scriptures, but in their entirity, and as to each individual part.

There are two ways of answering what I take to be your primary assertion. The first is just to put into your head the idea that God is in control of His creation. As you read the scriptures with that thought in mind, you will find more and more that the whole bible reflects that attitude, from the Name of God which is Lord of Hosts, to the fact that God laught at those who think that the mock Him. From the eternally set destiny of Jesus to the eternally set destiny of Judas.

The second reply is to think things through a bit. Is God the God of order, or disorder? Are we made in his image, and capable of understanding His revelation in scripture? If not, of course, then we have no basis of discussion...

But if God's statements are implicitly logical, then we may use our own reasoning to explore God's word, & to test out understanding of it.

So, if God loves everyone, then why does He not save everyone? Is it because He is willing to grant them free will to decide whether or not to accept salvation?

I think that I presented the cihld analogy previously - suffice it to say that God granting men the free will to choose eternal death is much like a parent allowing a 2 year old to choose to play with a gun or on the freeway. This is not the act of a god who loves. This god is either unwilling to overcome his rules to save a child of his, or he is unable to plan ahead enough to save the child, or he is powerless to save the child. Which is it?

If this is God's love for me, then I will be in despair, because He really is unable to save - apparently the local police, criminals, and demons have more power in this world, becaus they can at least kill me... Such a god is impotent.

In contrast, the living God is supremely potent. He is able to do all that He decides to do. His love for the whole world is much different from His love for His children. His love for the whole world is not a saving love, it is a statement of desire, of an inability to delight in the pain or death of any creature.

But He gives His love for the elect full reign. Everything that happens on this earth is for the good of the elect. And I could continue, but i think that the point is made. There are two types of people in the world; the elect, and the damned. Rejoice greatly if you are of the elect, because God loves you with a love that is eternal and which will not be denied! And pray that those you know are not of the damned, because they are eternally doomed.

Gotta go.

[Guest]

Steve - quick note to say that I am going to low down a bit - I have other things to do as well as defend the gospel , so I'll be posting less frequently. Now that we have taken each other's measure, perhaps we should narrow our focus to a single point at a time. I don't know that this is feasible, since you probably arrange your topics differently than I, but we might find some common ground.

With your permission, I will start a new thread on one or more of your list_of_seven.

I wish you a pleasant trip, & you can reply at your leisure upon your return.

Cheers............de

[Guest]

Well, I'm not exactly sure what statement of mine this is in reference to, but I catch the drift. I imagine that you object to the assertion that God has predestined some to salvation and some to damnation since before the creation, and that there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do about that. Or that everything that happens has been preordained by God, which is another say of saying the same thing.

Sure, I've pointed out scripture that refutes this in my previous posts. Please consider it.

There are two ways of answering what I take to be your primary assertion. The first is just to put into your head the idea that God is in control of His creation. As you read the scriptures with that thought in mind, you will find more and more that the whole bible reflects that attitude, from the Name of God which is Lord of Hosts, to the fact that God laught at those who think that the mock Him. From the eternally set destiny of Jesus to the eternally set destiny of Judas.

God is in control, but the type of control you speak of would make the evil done by men be by the power of God. The captain of a ship is in control too, but he doesn't control the thoughts and actions of each crew member, yet he is sovereign.

So, if God loves everyone, then why does He not save everyone? Is it because He is willing to grant them free will to decide whether or not to accept salvation?

I think that I presented the cihld analogy previously - suffice it to say that God granting men the free will to choose eternal death is much like a parent allowing a 2 year old to choose to play with a gun or on the freeway. This is not the act of a god who loves. This god is either unwilling to overcome his rules to save a child of his, or he is unable to plan ahead enough to save the child, or he is powerless to save the child. Which is it?

I don't see how this makes your point. If God creates some to be reprobate, then how is this unlike the 2 year old that doesn't know any better but God is unwilling to save, even though He has the power. This would make God unlike the good samaritan (Luke 10) and more like the priest or the Levite who saw someone in need and passed them by, even though God has the ability to help he simply passes by the reprobate.

His love for the whole world is not a saving love, it is a statement of desire, of an inability to delight in the pain or death of any creature.

If it's God's desire, why can it not be fulfilled? Is it beyond God to get what He desires? You can't have it both ways, either He can have all He desires or not.

But He gives His love for the elect full reign. Everything that happens on this earth is for the good of the elect. And I could continue, but i think that the point is made. There are two types of people in the world; the elect, and the damned. Rejoice greatly if you are of the elect, because God loves you with a love that is eternal and which will not be denied! And pray that those you know are not of the damned, because they are eternally doomed.

Gotta go.

If God passed by the damned even though they were in need of salvation because they cannot save themselves then how is God better than the Levite or priest in the good samaritan passage in Luke 10? Why does Jesus ask us to show a greater love towards others than God has to show, especially when we are called to be imitators of God?