What is the unbeliever rejecting? If Calvinism is true, then the unbeliever is rejecting a God who doesn't love or provide for them. They are rejecting a God who first rejected them and created them for wrath. Who wouldn't reject that? You must start with the biblical teaching of God's love and provision for all people to present an accurate view of the gospel. Otherwise, people may think they aren't really loved or provided for when in reality they are. If they reject the gospel, they are rejecting a God who genuinely loves and provides for them. They should know that.
This Flowersian garbage completely doesn’t grant the Calvinist position like you imagine… the entire case from Romans 9 is that what God has decided would determine what that unbeliever does with Christ by their own wills. So your comment seems to try to grant Calvinism yet also view God from without it still. It’s like Calvinism is true but yet we can judge it like it wasn’t. Huge logical problem with this argument.
@@ReformedlyGuymore logically ridiculous is the fundamental basis for his argument - that a person could reject God BASED on their definite knowledge of their own reprobation, which they would never have.
![Fc ครับ ขอแนะนำให้รู้จักกับ "น้องเปียโน" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQU6Q_IYTLo/mqdefault.jpg)
this man is a blessing from God
Need to show the other side of the coin you can’t read Romans 9 in isolation to Jerimiah 18, Ezekiel 18 Ezekiel 33 2 Timothy 2:20 etc
What is the unbeliever rejecting? If Calvinism is true, then the unbeliever is rejecting a God who doesn't love or provide for them. They are rejecting a God who first rejected them and created them for wrath. Who wouldn't reject that? You must start with the biblical teaching of God's love and provision for all people to present an accurate view of the gospel. Otherwise, people may think they aren't really loved or provided for when in reality they are. If they reject the gospel, they are rejecting a God who genuinely loves and provides for them. They should know that.
This Flowersian garbage completely doesn’t grant the Calvinist position like you imagine… the entire case from Romans 9 is that what God has decided would determine what that unbeliever does with Christ by their own wills. So your comment seems to try to grant Calvinism yet also view God from without it still. It’s like Calvinism is true but yet we can judge it like it wasn’t. Huge logical problem with this argument.
@@ReformedlyGuymore logically ridiculous is the fundamental basis for his argument - that a person could reject God BASED on their definite knowledge of their own reprobation, which they would never have.