Random Questions; Bible-based answers

[OMC]

No, I merely discerned from you saying "Until you come to grips with that what else can be said?" that we are at the same impasse I have had with every/many tulipists on CC before you, so if you also will not see/admit that the tulip interpretation of Scripture makes God favoring the elect and hateful toward the non-elect--as any eight-year-old child would perceive if their parents treated them that way-- then I am at a loss for words! (I think only one tulipist admitted that his view does that, but he still was unwilling to amend his view!)

So, unless you have a suggestion for an argument I could use that would be more persuasive/enlightening,
what else can be said indeed?

The impasse isn’t about “tulipism,” it’s about your category mistake: you keep insisting that unless someone agrees God must love all people in the same way and give all people the same opportunities, then God is “hateful,” but Scripture grounds God’s goodness in His unchanging nature (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17), not in a human‑level symmetry test, and none of the passages you cited teach divine moral free will or your parental analogy; they teach that God is righteous, just, and faithful to His own character.
Your “eight‑year‑old child” analogy simply replaces Scripture with human intuition, and that’s why the conversation stalls — not because I’m a tulipist, but because you’re asking me to accept an argument Scripture never makes.
If you want a more persuasive angle, the only fruitful one is to demonstrate from Scripture alone that God’s goodness requires identical treatment of all people; until that’s shown, the discussion can’t move forward.

 

[GWH]

The impasse isn’t about “tulipism,” it’s about your category mistake: you keep insisting that unless someone agrees God must love all people in the same way and give all people the same opportunities, then God is “hateful,” but Scripture grounds God’s goodness in His unchanging nature (Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17), not in a human‑level symmetry test, and none of the passages you cited teach divine moral free will or your parental analogy; they teach that God is righteous, just, and faithful to His own character.
Your “eight‑year‑old child” analogy simply replaces Scripture with human intuition, and that’s why the conversation stalls — not because I’m a tulipist, but because you’re asking me to accept an argument Scripture never makes.
If you want a more persuasive angle, the only fruitful one is to demonstrate from Scripture alone that God’s goodness requires identical treatment of all people; until that’s shown, the discussion can’t move forward.

We are looping again because you are again importing your words (same, identical) instead of quoting mine.
Again, just treatment only requires that the consequences be proportionate to the sin.

For example, because I have had lifelong opportunity to learn and accept the Gospel,
my refusal to cooperate with God's will would warrant more severe consequences than someone
with minimal good influences--perhaps like you?

A little child shall lead them... Did you learn nothing about fairness and kindness toward everyone from Sesame Street?
If you see no way forward, feel free to sign off your way since you make fun of mine.

 

[OMC]

We are looping again because you are again importing your words (same, identical) instead of quoting mine.
Again, just treatment only requires that the consequences be proportionate to the sin.

For example, because I have had lifelong opportunity to learn and accept the Gospel,
my refusal to cooperate with God's will would warrant more severe consequences than someone
with minimal good influences--perhaps like you?

A little child shall lead them... Did you learn nothing about fairness and kindness toward everyone from Sesame Street?
If you see no way forward, feel free to sign off your way since you make fun of mine.

oh ok, I see what you're doing, nice try. When the Lord comes and asks what you think you are doing in his seat I can hardly wait to hear your response.

 

[GWH]

oh ok, I see what you're doing, nice try. When the Lord comes and asks what you think you are doing in his seat I can hardly wait to hear your response.

You think that way of ending the discussion is better than mine was?!

 

[OMC]

You think that way of ending the discussion is better than mine was?!

You keep calling me things that you could not possibly know unless you were God. You will never know my heart. Oh I know what's coming next, "I can tell by the way you talk" Right, and all the scripture you keep redefining says what about yours?

 

[GWH]

You keep calling me things that you could not possibly know unless you were God. You will never know my heart. Oh I know what's coming next, "I can tell by the way you talk" Right, and all the scripture you keep redefining says what about yours?

On the contrary, your heart prompted me to realize or receive the insight that tulipists may be saved if their heresy/blasphemy is unintentional or due to ignorance per 1Cor. 3:13-15, whereas before I was focusing on Gal. 1:6-9 and thinking they were condemned.

As I said/indicated before, I believe you affirm the Christian creed and thus our discussions are about complicated didachaic doctrines that build on the fundamental creed, so essentially we are spiritual brothers who need to practice what Paul said in Phil. 3:12-16.

 

[OMC]

On the contrary, your heart prompted me to realize or receive the insight that tulipists may be saved if their heresy/blasphemy is unintentional or due to ignorance per 1Cor. 3:13-15, whereas before I was focusing on Gal. 1:6-9 and thinking they were condemned.

As I said/indicated before, I believe you affirm the Christian creed and thus our discussions are about complicated didachaic doctrines that build on the fundamental creed, so essentially we are spiritual brothers who need to practice what Paul said in Phil. 3:12-16.

You are one self centered piece of work. Go save a dog. leave me be demon

 

[GWH]

You are one self centered piece of work. Go save a dog. leave me be demon

Wow! I see I was right the first time!

 

[GWH]

Wow! I see I was right the first time!

Actually, that is not true. My first impression was that you were an amiable person open to learning via pleasant conversation.
My second impression was that you were confused about the heretical implications of tulip.
My third impression was that you agreed to disagree regarding MFW.
And my current conclusion is that the category of tulip has you trapped.

As I have shared, my category or hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture is these two guiding teachings from which I triangulate when considering problematic passages.

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice.

I doubt this category is wrong/false.

 

[OMC]

Actually, that is not true. My first impression was that you were an amiable person open to learning via pleasant conversation.
My second impression was that you were confused about the heretical implications of tulip.
My third impression was that you agreed to disagree regarding MFW.
And my current conclusion is that the category of tulip has you trapped.

As I have shared, my category or hermeneutic for interpreting Scripture is these two guiding teachings from which I triangulate when considering problematic passages.

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice.

World‑system diagnosis: your approach reflects System 3 (sentimental‑moral intuition as controlling hermeneutic), where divine love and justice are defined by human categories and then imposed on Scripture;
The biblical writers operate in System 1 (covenant‑juridical), where God’s love, justice, wrath, mercy, election, and patience are defined by His character and covenant actions, not by human symmetry requirements.
your two‑point hermeneutic (“God loves all equally” + “God must be just in a way that satisfies human symmetry”) is not the biblical starting point; it is the grid you bring to the text, and then you force every passage to fit it, which is why you keep concluding that anyone who doesn’t share your grid is “trapped.”
The verses you cite absolutely teach God’s love, mercy, kindness, patience, and universal gospel offer — but none of them teach omnilove as equalized salvific intent, and none of them teach justice as symmetrical treatment of all persons.
John 3:16 speaks of God’s love in giving the Son, not of equalized election;
1 Tim 2:3–4 speaks of God’s saving desire, not of universalized outcome;
Rom 5:8 speaks of God’s love toward the ungodly, not of identical covenant intention toward all; and every justice text you cite (Rom 3:25–26; 2 Thess 1:6; Ps 145:17) grounds justice in God’s own nature, not in human fairness analogies.
Your hermeneutic is not “triangulation”; it is pre‑commitment — you begin with two axioms and reinterpret every “problematic passage” until it fits them.
Your two‑point hermeneutic falls under what Paul calls a “doctrine of demons” (1 Tim 4:1) because it relocates authority from Scripture to a pre‑set emotional grid (“God must love all equally” + “God must act with symmetrical justice”), and then forces every passage to bow to that grid, making the text non‑falsifiable.

 

[GWH]

World‑system diagnosis: your approach reflects System 3 (sentimental‑moral intuition as controlling hermeneutic), where divine love and justice are defined by human categories and then imposed on Scripture;
The biblical writers operate in System 1 (covenant‑juridical), where God’s love, justice, wrath, mercy, election, and patience are defined by His character and covenant actions, not by human symmetry requirements.
your two‑point hermeneutic (“God loves all equally” + “God must be just in a way that satisfies human symmetry”) is not the biblical starting point; it is the grid you bring to the text, and then you force every passage to fit it, which is why you keep concluding that anyone who doesn’t share your grid is “trapped.”
The verses you cite absolutely teach God’s love, mercy, kindness, patience, and universal gospel offer — but none of them teach omnilove as equalized salvific intent, and none of them teach justice as symmetrical treatment of all persons.
John 3:16 speaks of God’s love in giving the Son, not of equalized election;
1 Tim 2:3–4 speaks of God’s saving desire, not of universalized outcome;
Rom 5:8 speaks of God’s love toward the ungodly, not of identical covenant intention toward all; and every justice text you cite (Rom 3:25–26; 2 Thess 1:6; Ps 145:17) grounds justice in God’s own nature, not in human fairness analogies.
Your hermeneutic is not “triangulation”; it is pre‑commitment — you begin with two axioms and reinterpret every “problematic passage” until it fits them.
Your two‑point hermeneutic falls under what Paul calls a “doctrine of demons” (1 Tim 4:1) because it relocates authority from Scripture to a pre‑set emotional grid (“God must love all equally” + “God must act with symmetrical justice”), and then forces every passage to bow to that grid, making the text non‑falsifiable.

Well, imagine us arriving at the pearly gate, where beyond saving faith I share my belief that God is perfectly just and omniloving,
but you disagree, accusing God of favoring the elect and hating the non-elect.
Whose belief gets burned up by flames as we enter? (Matt. 3:11b-12)
I bet on you.

 

[OMC]

Well, imagine us arriving at the pearly gate, where beyond saving faith I share my belief that God is perfectly just and omniloving,
but you disagree, accusing God of favoring the elect and hating the non-elect.
Whose belief gets burned up by flames as we enter? (Matt. 3:11b-12)
I bet on you.

The “whose belief gets burned up” question is answered directly by Paul: what burns is wood, hay, stubble — human systems, emotional grids, self‑made categories — not the person (1 Cor 3:12–15);
The issue at the gate is not whether you affirm “omnilove” or I affirm “electing love,” but whether either of us built our theology on anything other than the text itself.

 

[GWH]

The “whose belief gets burned up” question is answered directly by Paul: what burns is wood, hay, stubble — human systems, emotional grids, self‑made categories — not the person (1 Cor 3:12–15);
The issue at the gate is not whether you affirm “omnilove” or I affirm “electing love,” but whether either of us built our theology on anything other than the text itself.

Yes, and false beliefs.
The issue is what is true, both text and para-text.
Your electing love/tulip category affirms God hates humanity that is not favored with forced election.
That heresy is built on warped interpretation of a few proof-texts.
Better arrive wearing an asbestos suit.

 

[OMC]

Yes, and false beliefs.
The issue is what is true, both text and para-text.
Your electing love/tulip category affirms God hates humanity that is not favored with forced election.
That heresy is built on warped interpretation of a few proof-texts.
Better arrive wearing an asbestos suit.

Oh fantastic — we’ve reached the “better wear an asbestos suit because Calvinism makes God hate humanity” stage, where your two‑axiom hermeneutic (God must love all equally + God must act with symmetrical justice) becomes the para‑text that judges the text, and then you congratulate yourself for defending God’s character against the Bible itself; meanwhile you accuse me of believing God “hates humanity” because I quote passages like Rom 9:13, John 17:9, Deut 7:7–8, and Eph 1:4–5, but somehow your system — which requires reinterpreting every election, covenant, judgment, and wrath passage until they fit your emotional grid — is the one that will stroll through the fire untouched, while mine apparently needs flame‑retardant gear. Paul says what burns is wood, hay, stubble — human systems, sentimental grids, and unfalsifiable categories (1 Cor 3:12–15); if your “omnilove + symmetry” framework is not in the text, it burns; if my reading were system‑driven instead of text‑driven, it would burn too. But your “I bet on you” line is peak System 3 sentimental‑moral intuition masquerading as theology, while Paul’s actual standard is Scripture alone — System 1 covenant‑juridical reality — not your para‑text, not my sarcasm, and definitely not asbestos fashion statements at the gate.

 

[GWH]

Oh fantastic — we’ve reached the “better wear an asbestos suit because Calvinism makes God hate humanity” stage, where your two‑axiom hermeneutic (God must love all equally + God must act with symmetrical justice) becomes the para‑text that judges the text, and then you congratulate yourself for defending God’s character against the Bible itself; meanwhile you accuse me of believing God “hates humanity” because I quote passages like Rom 9:13, John 17:9, Deut 7:7–8, and Eph 1:4–5, but somehow your system — which requires reinterpreting every election, covenant, judgment, and wrath passage until they fit your emotional grid — is the one that will stroll through the fire untouched, while mine apparently needs flame‑retardant gear. Paul says what burns is wood, hay, stubble — human systems, sentimental grids, and unfalsifiable categories (1 Cor 3:12–15); if your “omnilove + symmetry” framework is not in the text, it burns; if my reading were system‑driven instead of text‑driven, it would burn too. But your “I bet on you” line is peak System 3 sentimental‑moral intuition masquerading as theology, while Paul’s actual standard is Scripture alone — System 1 covenant‑juridical reality — not your para‑text, not my sarcasm, and definitely not asbestos fashion statements at the gate.

Yes, we have reached the betting stage, which is how I typically end looping discussions.
No hard feelings; this is how all of my discussions with tulipists have ended.