Gary wrote:

> "Bob Felts" wrote in message
> news:A30520F2-981A-3C3D-EE8C-AAD4C9A8CFD2@srcbs.org...
> > Bart Goddard wrote:
> >
> > > gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > > That God loves ALL without exception. Unlike you, Luther, and
> > > > Calvinists who teach that God only loves (savingly) some "elect."
> > >
> > > You soooooooooooooo don't know what I believe. Neither I nor Luther
> > > taught that God loves only the elect.
> > >
> >
> > As a Calvinist, I can confidently say that God loves even those who are
> > in hell.
>
> Sure, He loved them soooooo much that He "passed them by,"
> and put them there with no recourse!
>
> Such love is too "wonderful" for words! NOT!
>

What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I
will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So it depends not on
human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture
says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing
my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth."
So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of
whomever he chooses.


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Gary McNees wrote:

> "Bob Felts" wrote in message
> news:145.59.09.05.229919000@srcbs.org...
> >
> >
> > Gary McNees wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > God is his nature. Hence God wills according to His nature.
> > >
> >
> > Can God will to change His nature?
>
> No.
>

Then God doesn't have free will.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Loren wrote:

>Hey Matt, why bother? The "rn" for "m" is a scanning error. He's
>copying this stuff and posting and letting everyone think he's
writting
>it

I have cut and pasted stuff here and made the mistake of not specifying
which was mine and which is borrowed. It is apointless distraction to
make an ssue out of it. But, being that yours and Matthew's arguments
are so specious I ccan see why you would need distractions.

I will make sure to give each and every source I qu