The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If I were, I would get what I deserve.

But the "P" in TULIP is my favorite. The Lord Jesus will ensure his flock will endure to the end, if we are truly His. What good shepherd would actually allow his little sheep to wander off and be consumed by the enemy? Not mine.

While we can all find ourselves in seasons of doubt, I know I belong to Jesus. Not because I ate of a specific loaf or was baptized at just the right time, but because I know who Christ is, what He did me on the cross, and I have placed all of my trust in him, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. I desire to mold my life after Christ as Scripture has outlined, and I aim to carry on until my time on Earth is over.

---

How can you have kids with this theology?

---

Well, since God is totally sovereign in this theology, did he really have any choice but to have kids? If God wants X number of kids for His elect from 10&B, what can 10&B do to stop Him?

---

My point is that I could not have kids knowing that they could be preordained to ECT hell. And I and they have no control over it.

But that is me. And like I said I applaud Calvinists for their faith. I personally can not go there. And when I tried it nearly destroyed me. If Calvinists are correct, then maybe it is because I am preordained to ECT hell is why I can't agree with TULIP.

i had no choice in being created. I am here. According to TULIP, my fate is sealed. Either ECT hell or heaven. I can do nothing to change that so it is done.

I do have control over whether I have kids. And I would not if I believed in TULIP.Unless God, who I believe is omnipotent, had my wife become pregnant, then have a kid (we do not believe in abortion), and preordain that child to ECT hell for His glory according to Calvinists.

To me (and I am only talking about myself), that would make God worse than Hitler. Preordained ETERNAL conscious hell for a child I love. I can not fathom that. But that is me. And when I tried to believe it, I nearly killed myself with booze and sleeping pills.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If I were, I would get what I deserve.

But the "P" in TULIP is my favorite. The Lord Jesus will ensure his flock will endure to the end, if we are truly His. What good shepherd would actually allow his little sheep to wander off and be consumed by the enemy? Not mine.

While we can all find ourselves in seasons of doubt, I know I belong to Jesus. Not because I ate of a specific loaf or was baptized at just the right time, but because I know who Christ is, what He did me on the cross, and I have placed all of my trust in him, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. I desire to mold my life after Christ as Scripture has outlined, and I aim to carry on until my time on Earth is over.

---

How can you have kids with this theology?

---

Well, since God is totally sovereign in this theology, did he really have any choice but to have kids? If God wants X number of kids for His elect from 10&B, what can 10&B do to stop Him?

---

My point is that I could not have kids knowing that they could be preordained to ECT hell. And I and they have no control over it.

But that is me. And like I said I applaud Calvinists for their faith. I personally can not go there. And when I tried it nearly destroyed me. If Calvinists are correct, then maybe it is because I am preordained to ECT hell is why I can't agree with TULIP.

i had no choice in being created. I am here. According to TULIP, my fate is sealed. Either ECT hell or heaven. I can do nothing to change that so it is done.

I do have control over whether I have kids. And I would not if I believed in TULIP.Unless God, who I believe is omnipotent, had my wife become pregnant, then have a kid (we do not believe in abortion), and preordain that child to ECT hell for His glory according to Calvinists.

To me (and I am only talking about myself), that would make God worse than Hitler. Preordained ETERNAL conscious hell for a child I love. I can not fathom that. But that is me. And when I tried to believe it, I nearly killed myself with booze and sleeping pills.

---

Again, their view on faith is that it is monergistically given to them.. If man has to choose to believe, then man has a role in his salvation, which is not gonna jive with Calvinism. You should applaud God for the faith of Calvinists, if you're going to view it through their lens.

Also, if you were a TULIP believing Calvinist, by what ground would you say you have control over having a child? God has preordained every single human being to hell or heaven before the foundation of the world. You choosing not to have a baby that God wanted means you prevented Him from ordaining someone to heaven or hell. This means that election has a human element, which takes it outside of God's 100% control. A consistent Calvinist should say that whatever babies they chose to have were because God foreordained they would choose to have that many children.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If I were, I would get what I deserve.

But the "P" in TULIP is my favorite. The Lord Jesus will ensure his flock will endure to the end, if we are truly His. What good shepherd would actually allow his little sheep to wander off and be consumed by the enemy? Not mine.

While we can all find ourselves in seasons of doubt, I know I belong to Jesus. Not because I ate of a specific loaf or was baptized at just the right time, but because I know who Christ is, what He did me on the cross, and I have placed all of my trust in him, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. I desire to mold my life after Christ as Scripture has outlined, and I aim to carry on until my time on Earth is over.

---

How can you have kids with this theology?

---

Well, since God is totally sovereign in this theology, did he really have any choice but to have kids? If God wants X number of kids for His elect from 10&B, what can 10&B do to stop Him?

---

My point is that I could not have kids knowing that they could be preordained to ECT hell. And I and they have no control over it.

But that is me. And like I said I applaud Calvinists for their faith. I personally can not go there. And when I tried it nearly destroyed me. If Calvinists are correct, then maybe it is because I am preordained to ECT hell is why I can't agree with TULIP.

i had no choice in being created. I am here. According to TULIP, my fate is sealed. Either ECT hell or heaven. I can do nothing to change that so it is done.

I do have control over whether I have kids. And I would not if I believed in TULIP.Unless God, who I believe is omnipotent, had my wife become pregnant, then have a kid (we do not believe in abortion), and preordain that child to ECT hell for His glory according to Calvinists.

To me (and I am only talking about myself), that would make God worse than Hitler. Preordained ETERNAL conscious hell for a child I love. I can not fathom that. But that is me. And when I tried to believe it, I nearly killed myself with booze and sleeping pills.

---

Again, their view on faith is that it is monergistically given to them.. If man has to choose to believe, then man has a role in his salvation, which is not gonna jive with Calvinism. You should applaud God for the faith of Calvinists, if you're going to view it through their lens.

Also, if you were a TULIP believing Calvinist, by what ground would you say you have control over having a child? God has preordained every single human being to hell or heaven before the foundation of the world. You choosing not to have a baby that God wanted means you prevented Him from ordaining someone to heaven or hell. This means that election has a human element, which takes it outside of God's 100% control. A consistent Calvinist should say that whatever babies they chose to have were because God foreordained they would choose to have that many children.

---

I said I applauded them for their faith I said that if Calvinism is right, then maybe I am preordained to hell and that is why I cannot agree with TULIP.

And as I stated I am here. And if TULIP is correct and I disagree with it, then sounds like I am preordained to hell.

But I'll be damned (excuse the pun) that if I believed TULIP, I would have kids and subject them to the possibility of ECT hell.

If TULIP is correct, there is no shame in going to hell. Nothing you could have done about it. Heck, some people believe in TULIP for decades before rejecting it, meaning they were destined for hell during all those years of belief anyway.

But if you believed in TULIP and refused to have kids for fear of them going hell, it's actually God making you not have kids, because He has already monergistically decided who will and won't be born without any input from you. You don't actually get a say if you believe in TULIP. You just get to think you do.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If I were, I would get what I deserve.

But the "P" in TULIP is my favorite. The Lord Jesus will ensure his flock will endure to the end, if we are truly His. What good shepherd would actually allow his little sheep to wander off and be consumed by the enemy? Not mine.

While we can all find ourselves in seasons of doubt, I know I belong to Jesus. Not because I ate of a specific loaf or was baptized at just the right time, but because I know who Christ is, what He did me on the cross, and I have placed all of my trust in him, albeit in a very flawed and incomplete way. I desire to mold my life after Christ as Scripture has outlined, and I aim to carry on until my time on Earth is over.

---

How can you have kids with this theology?

---

Well, since God is totally sovereign in this theology, did he really have any choice but to have kids? If God wants X number of kids for His elect from 10&B, what can 10&B do to stop Him?

---

My point is that I could not have kids knowing that they could be preordained to ECT hell. And I and they have no control over it.

But that is me. And like I said I applaud Calvinists for their faith. I personally can not go there. And when I tried it nearly destroyed me. If Calvinists are correct, then maybe it is because I am preordained to ECT hell is why I can't agree with TULIP.

i had no choice in being created. I am here. According to TULIP, my fate is sealed. Either ECT hell or heaven. I can do nothing to change that so it is done.

I do have control over whether I have kids. And I would not if I believed in TULIP.Unless God, who I believe is omnipotent, had my wife become pregnant, then have a kid (we do not believe in abortion), and preordain that child to ECT hell for His glory according to Calvinists.

To me (and I am only talking about myself), that would make God worse than Hitler. Preordained ETERNAL conscious hell for a child I love. I can not fathom that. But that is me. And when I tried to believe it, I nearly killed myself with booze and sleeping pills.

---

Again, their view on faith is that it is monergistically given to them.. If man has to choose to believe, then man has a role in his salvation, which is not gonna jive with Calvinism. You should applaud God for the faith of Calvinists, if you're going to view it through their lens.

Also, if you were a TULIP believing Calvinist, by what ground would you say you have control over having a child? God has preordained every single human being to hell or heaven before the foundation of the world. You choosing not to have a baby that God wanted means you prevented Him from ordaining someone to heaven or hell. This means that election has a human element, which takes it outside of God's 100% control. A consistent Calvinist should say that whatever babies they chose to have were because God foreordained they would choose to have that many children.

---

I said I applauded them for their faith I said that if Calvinism is right, then maybe I am preordained to hell and that is why I cannot agree with TULIP.

And as I stated I am here. And if TULIP is correct and I disagree with it, then sounds like I am preordained to hell.

But I'll be damned (excuse the pun) that if I believed TULIP, I would have kids and subject them to the possibility of ECT hell.

---

Plenty of Arminians are in Heaven; there is no requirement of believing a man-made acronym.

No matter your spiritual and theological beliefs, you are subjecting children to hell by bringing them into the world, unless you believe all will be saved regardless of who they claim Christ is. Whether it is God's sovereign choice or man's free will, some will be saved and others will not.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Plenty of Arminians are in Heaven; there is no requirement of believing a man-made acronym.

No matter your spiritual and theological beliefs, you are subjecting children to hell by bringing them into the world, unless you believe all will be saved regardless of who they claim Christ is. Whether it is God's sovereign choice or man's free will, some will be saved and others will not.

---

Arminians don't believe in monergism though. Man must choose to follow God and man call fall away after that initial choice. Arminius basically resurrected the synergist teachings the Reformers broke away from.

Arminians can say they believe each of their babies has a shot at responding to God's call. Calvinists can't say that. Each baby's destination is already pre-planned

Yes I know that Armininans are anti monergism. I am simply saying that it is not a requirement to be saved.

If you do not you want to acknowledge foreordination, if you bring a child into this world there is a chance they are saved and chance they aren't. I still don't see how that is supposed to bring peace. If anything that brings me extreme anxiety and pressure to somehow shape my child's belief in a way that is truly genuine.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes I know that Armininans are anti monergism. I am simply saying that it is not a requirement to be saved.

Whether or not you want to acknowledge foreordination, if you bring a child into this world there is a chance they are saved and chance they aren't. I still don't see how that is supposed to bring peace. If anything that brings me extreme anxiety and pressure to somehow shape my child's belief in a way that is truly genuine.

---

Monergism was a foundational tenet for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. It's a founding principle of Protestantism. All those dudes would say belief in synergistic salvation is a severe theological error and likely indicated an unsaved individual.

To the bolded, Calvinism would say there is no "chance". God already picked. If damned, their damnation 100% locked in. Your child didn't go wayward or rest in their own pride and ability. He/She just wasn't picked. It may not generate anxiety in you, but idk how you could look at your new born baby and think that he or she is already irrevocably screwed

To the italicized, it shouldn't bring extreme anxiety or pressure, but some level of anxiety is to be expected in parenthood, both for their spiritual and physical safety. Why bother with Christian or homeschooling if public schools aren't going to have any effect on their salvation? Who cares if they access website they shouldn't at a young age, if their salvation or damnation is already decided?

I know that, as a dad, I can't offer my child salvation. But clearly I am commanded in the bible to raise them well and teach them the faith. What good does teaching them the faith do if he or she never had a shot at believing in the first place? It's totally unnecessary commands. If anything, i would say Calvinism (or monergism in general) makes it very easy to punt the responsibility all together. Synergism brings the healthy blend of seeing the urgency of teaching our children the faith, while resting on the fact that God is the one who has the power to save. St. Monica praying for St. Augustine while he was still lost is the preeminent example.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes I know that Armininans are anti monergism. I am simply saying that it is not a requirement to be saved.

Whether or not you want to acknowledge foreordination, if you bring a child into this world there is a chance they are saved and chance they aren't. I still don't see how that is supposed to bring peace. If anything that brings me extreme anxiety and pressure to somehow shape my child's belief in a way that is truly genuine.

---

Monergism was a foundational tenet for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. It's a founding principle of Protestantism. All those dudes would say belief in synergistic salvation is a severe theological error and likely indicated an unsaved individual.

---

Those dudes weren't perfect. I'd agree it's a theological error but we all have theological errors. Unless you're Catholic or Orthodox of course.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes I know that Armininans are anti monergism. I am simply saying that it is not a requirement to be saved.

Whether or not you want to acknowledge foreordination, if you bring a child into this world there is a chance they are saved and chance they aren't. I still don't see how that is supposed to bring peace. If anything that brings me extreme anxiety and pressure to somehow shape my child's belief in a way that is truly genuine.

---

Monergism was a foundational tenet for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. It's a founding principle of Protestantism. All those dudes would say belief in synergistic salvation is a severe theological error and likely indicated an unsaved individual.

---

Those dudes weren't perfect. I'd agree it's a theological error but we all have theological errors. Unless you're Catholic or Orthodox of course.

---

When a theological error results in the body of believers splintering into thousands of different sects, I would say that's on heck of an error.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Link?

---

You

"Ah, yes, the Calvinist hating, free will loving, pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality"

Or are you saying we actually do have free Will, but it is something only deserving of mockery and contempt?

Or it's irrelevant. We have free will to sin. We have free will to accept Christ as our Lord and Savior. We have free will to repent

All of which are meaningless because the decision on salvation has already been made. Which, in that sense is not really free will, since it's of no consequence

Like dermdoc, I totally believe in the sovereignty of God. But I also believe that God wants all of us saved, and offers us that opportunity, free of charge.

We can accept or reject

To argue otherwise is to effectively argue that we have no free will. It's just meaningless gestures

Is this a fair summary?

Me: God has unlimited Sovereignty and I have limited Free Will
You: God has limited Sovereignty and I have unlimited Free Will

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is this a fair summary?

Me: God has unlimited Sovereignty and I have limited Free Will
You: God has limited Sovereignty and I have unlimited Free Will

---

Uh nope. Your words not mine

God has unlimited sovereignty and has gifted us the opportunity to accept or reject him.

He can do as he pleases, and that includes gifting us that ability. Or not

Call it what you want

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is this a fair summary?

Me: God has unlimited Sovereignty and I have limited Free Will
You: God has limited Sovereignty and I have unlimited Free Will

---

There is an easy, logical conclusion(s).
Scripture says God desires all men to be saved.
God is Sovereign.
All men are saved

Or Scripture says God desires to save all men.
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, God allows man free will to reject Him

Both of those retain God's character as a loving Father and His Sovereignty. If some are lost, it is their choice, not God's.

Calvinism says
God is Sovereign.
In His Sovereignty, He alone preordains who is saved and who is damned. So He knowingly creates people who are eternally damned. With no chance of salvation.

To me, it is completely illogical.
I have no idea how Calvinists interpret Scripture that state God desires all to be saved.
Or that God is love. And combine that with theology that states that this loving God creates people for eternal conscious torment. To show His glory.
Strange interpretation of "love" in my opinion.

But this is only my thought process. And I love and applaud my Calvinist brothers/sisters in Christ for their faith.
I can not go there and as I have said, maybe it is me.

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

And that begs another question.

Why are there no confessions from the last multiple centuries? Just food for thought.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I hope you open your heart and don't use Calvinism to stop you from finding God.

---

Ah, yes, the Calvinist hating, free will loving, pull yourself up by your bootstraps mentality.

Ever been around sheep? I am always fascinated with the illustration as the Lord Jesus as the Good Shepherd and us as his sheep. They aren't really an animal that goes after and seeks out their shepherd when they are in need. They are almost wholly dependent on that shepherd to use that crook to bring them in when they go astray (not if they do, but when) and to not be consumed by countless threats. Sheep would literally die without their shepherd.

Ezekiel 34:11
For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out.

---

I can't even tell what you're saying.

I think you're attributed something to my statement and belief system that doesn't exist

I think it probably says something more about the way you think than the way I think

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

---

Under this premise, you and 10andBOUNCE aren't particularly different. You remove free will from mankind.

You just use it for one extreme, he uses it for another.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

---

Under this premise, you and 10andBOUNCE aren't particularly different. You remove free will from mankind.

You just use it for one extreme, he uses it for another.

---

Agree. But we have completely different concepts of the character of God. Which is the crux of the issue. I do not believe God preordains people He created to hell.

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

---

Under this premise, you and 10andBOUNCE aren't particularly different. You remove free will from mankind.

You just use it for one extreme, he uses it for another.

---

Agree. But we have completely different concepts of the character of God. Which is the crux of the issue. I do not believe God preordains people He created to hell.

---

I don't think that's the crux of the issue.

The crux of this debate, like most debates surrounding Scripture, comes down to what people want God to be or say, as opposed to what Scripture actually says God is and says.

In this debate, I'd argue that you both ignore the Scripture you dislike to reach the conclusions yall come to. Scripture that is rather clear in its teaching.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

---

Under this premise, you and 10andBOUNCE aren't particularly different. You remove free will from mankind.

You just use it for one extreme, he uses it for another.

---

Agree. But we have completely different concepts of the character of God. Which is the crux of the issue. I do not believe God preordains people He created to hell.

---

I don't think that's the crux of the issue.

The crux of this debate, like most debates surrounding Scripture, comes down to what people want God to be or say, as opposed to what Scripture actually says God is and says.

In this debate, I'd argue that you both ignore the Scripture you dislike to reach the conclusions yall come to. Scripture that is rather clear in its teaching.

---

And I could say the same to you.

Tell me what Scriptures tell you about the character of God.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

There's a multitude of confessions and catechisms that explain it better than I ever could.

---

Agree my friend. But it all boils down to what the character of God is. Does He pre ordain people to hell or not? That is the crux of the issue.
And I totally agree with you He could. Where we disagree is the character of God.

---

I actually think we mostly agree on the character of God. We would both agree of his omnipotence and goodness.

I think where we disagree is on the character of man.

---

Maybe so.

I know God is all good and omnipotent. Scripture says He desires to save everyone.

Why do you believe He does not save everyone? And how does an all good God create people preordained for ECT hell?

I have no problem with monergism if it is universal monergism. If it is selective monergism, then by definition, God creates people knowing they will spend eternity in ECT hell. I do not see love there.

---

Under this premise, you and 10andBOUNCE aren't particularly different. You remove free will from mankind.

You just use it for one extreme, he uses it for another.

---

Agree. But we have completely different concepts of the character of God. Which is the crux of the issue. I do not believe God preordains people He created to hell.

---

I don't think that's the crux of the issue.

The crux of this debate, like most debates surrounding Scripture, comes down to what people want God to be or say, as opposed to what Scripture actually says God is and says.

In this debate, I'd argue that you both ignore the Scripture you dislike to reach the conclusions yall come to. Scripture that is rather clear in its teaching.

---

And I value and respect your opinion. I want to learn. What are your thoughts on free will vs TULIP?

My feeling is that if Scripture is so clear on this, why has it been debated for centuries?