Some serious flaws in theology.

[auggybendoggy]

It seems as though the calvinists and U can point the finger right back at Arm. I like GoB find "free" will no better alternative to determinism.

It's like saying Chaos (Kaos hahah) has more quality than control (agent 86).

Is God any better if he allows his ceation (Adam) fall rather than keeping him from falling...
Could God have NOT placed the tree in Adams presence?
Could God have kept Satan from Adam and Eve?
Ahhhh So God wanted Satan there so ADAM'S FREE WILL COULD BE TESTED?

Seems that this argument to protect the virtue of a "real" relationship is not so persuasive.

Heres my take on love,
If I had the ability to allow my daughter to love that which I hate most (meaning she could choose to hate me) IN CONTRAST TO...
having my daughter love me because it's part of the nature for a daughter to love her father, I WOULD CHOOS THE LATTER.

IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ANY OF US THAT OUR CHILDREN CHOSE TO LOVE US, WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THEY DO.

So I find God being a bit on the "gambling" side as he put the tree in Adams presence. A God who loves them so much he died for them BUT he just could not help it but to allow satan near them and put a law (whos power is sin) right there with Adam.

Now if I have a God who is determined (where determinsm starts) to save me because he loves me and he should "alter" either inwardly or outrardly, either directly or indirectly MAKE or CAUSE me to righteoussness, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.

What does not sound like gospel to me is God allowing us to become blind, then pointing us in a direction when we can't even see him pointing. Yes, yes I know of this prevenient grace which Arm's HAVE to concoct in order to make the system work. It's as much a cocktail of neccessity as Determinism is of calvinism.

I stil leaned that our calvinist brothers are not far from the target.

Aug

[Sheepdog]

IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ANY OF US THAT OUR CHILDREN CHOSE TO LOVE US, WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THEY DO.

ok, let's take that for a test drive.

God so loved Adam that He causally determined that Adam must immutably fall.

Not very congruent. It has that square peg in a round hole feel.

[GoBahnsen]

ok, let's take that for a test drive.

God so loved Adam that He causally determined that Adam must immutably fall.

Not very congruent. It has that square peg in a round hole feel.

Come on people, a big reason the atheists remain atheists, is because they can't reconcile the God of the Bible with what THEY think a good God would do.

[Diolectic]

I'm still not satisfied with Diolectic's brushing off the account of the Amalekites, while still trying to impose his own sense of justice upon Calvinism.

First of all, it isn't my "own" sense of justice, it is the universal standard for all.
I am sure you see the injustices that I bring up. I don't know how you can justify them.

IOW, why is he willing to justify God (not that I think God was unjust with the Amalekites!) in the ordering of the extermination of that people group, with their animals, yet crying foul if God were involved in not giving everyone the grace necessary to be saved?

God does give everyone the grace necessary to be saved.

I am "crying foul" in that you say HE doesn't.

Your view of election, the non-elect have no grace to be saved because the Atonement is not for them.
They were never suposed to be saved in the first place, which makes them created only to be distroyed in hell.
Therefore, they are not in hell for what they have done, but in hell for that wich they were created for. TYRANNY!!!

IOW, if someone wants to be upset with Calvinism's double predestination, why not also be upset with the extermination of children by adult Israelite men?

Double predestination is not based upon merit as that extermination is.
The extermination of the Amalekites were by their own fault for not fearing GOD.
Calvinism's double predestination is based soley upon the wimes of an unscrupulous tyrant.

The Amalekites did not fear God, they met Israel by the way in the desert, and attacked those behind them, even all that were feeble behind you, when they were faint and weary(
Deu 25:18, Exod 17:8-16)

What did thos who were not yet born do to deserver damnation by being the non-elect?

Both concepts baffle the human sense of "fairness", yet one get's excused by the "fairness" people, because it was judgment time for the Amalekites.

I keep telling you that it is not a "fairness" issue, but a justice issue.

There is no justice in your interp of election.

IOW, if opponents of Calvinism want to cry foul, regarding the hard teachings contained in it, why not remain consistent and cry foul for every hard to understand teaching in Scripture?

Scripture is fact and must be based upon the only justice that we know( our own sence of it). Calvinism's teachings are theory, not based upon justice, but wrong interp of Scriture.
Facts are justifyable, Those made up theories are not.
The only way you can justify them is by saying that God has other standards than that He has given us.

And this transcends Diolectic's particular stance against Calvinism,

No, I am attempting to keep GOD justifyable and showing the rediculousness of thes made up theories.

the whole realm of all those who judge the Scriptures by human standards of "fairplay".

What elso does man have to go by.
What will God give you that will make these atrocities justifiable?

Why would God give us something that we can not use to know HIM by?
If God gave us HIS word in writen form, why shouldn't we understand it by our own GOD given comprehention?

Come on people, a big reason the atheists remain atheists, is because they can't reconcile the God of the Bible with what THEY think a good God would do.

It is because of people like you who distroy God's righteousness and make HIM into a devilish tyrant.

If one would only gfet rid of these rediculous theories(theology/doctrines) we could see God as we should and the atheists would be able to reconcile the God of the Bible with what THEY think a good God would do.

The truth is that all mankind can do what is required to be right with God which is to repent and put his faith in/on Christ.
One does not need to be "regenerated" first before he can even attempt to repent and put his faith in/on Christ.
There is no such thing as "sin nature/original sin" and that "Federal Headship of Adam" is not true.
God could not have made a world with no sin.
GOD does not get everything HE wants or wills.(I am not talking about the big picture here)

And for election; it is not totaly by God's choice.
Election is like this:
I know my wife so well that I make reservations to "Olive Garden" before I give her a choice to choose all the restaurants in the state of Iowa.
She has all the chances to choose any restaurant she wills.
However, She chooses "Olive Garden" that was already pre-chosen by me with reservations.
Another example:
I invite all the people in my town to "Olive Garden", but I only make reservations for those who I know that will come.
While every one has an invitation and has equal chance to be with me and all have a choice to come or not, only those who I know will choose to come are reserved to sit at my table.

So as God elects those who He foreknows will choose.
The choice remains on my wife and the fault remains on those who refuse to come.

[GoBahnsen]

Double predestination is not based upon merit as that extermination is.
The extermination of the Amalekites were by their own fault for not fearing GOD.
.

I see, the livestock didn't fear God either. And the babies, and the unborn, still in the womb, they didn't fear God. Look man, you have a problem here that you are trying to skirt. You cry foul when it suits you and look the other way when it doesn't.

Don't get me wrong, I find no fault with God for ordering the deaths of every Amalekite and the animals. It's this "universa standard of justice", as you call it, that won't accept the killing of pregant women and babies, with the livestock.

Sure, election is a hard teaching, but so are many other things found in Scripture.

What about the men who worked all day in the hot sun, but were still paid the same as those who only worked one hour in the cool of the day? Hey, they thought that was an injustice, because they applied your universal standard.

God corrects their perspective. God reminds them that He can do what He wants with His own stuff. Who are you oh man that repliest against God?

Edtit in: What it comes down to is, if you don't like a doctrine, then it fails to pass the test of your standard of universal justice.

[Diolectic]

I see, the livestock didn't fear God either. And the babies, and the unborn, still in the womb, they didn't fear God. Look man, you have a problem here that you are trying to skirt. You cry foul when it suits you and look the other way when it doesn't.

Livestock aren't condemnd to hell.
Babies and the unborn, still in the womb are not condemd to hell. Physical death is not judgment.
I am talking about judgment and hell, not about physical death.

I find no fault with God for ordering the deaths of every Amalekite and the animals

How do you see it justifyable, if all the Amalekites including babies, and the unborn, still in the womb are condemnd to hell for the reason of not being the "elect"?

It's this "universa standard of justice", as you call it, that won't accept the killing of pregant women and babies, with the livestock.

I am making a diference between death and jugment/condemnation.
Even christians die phisicaly, are we condemed?

Sure, election is a hard teaching, but so are many other things found in Scripture.

It is not a hard teaching, you only make it out to be that way.

Edtit in: What it comes down to is, if you don't like a doctrine, then it fails to pass the test of your standard of universal justice.

No. I don't like a doctrine that says an Inocent(Jesus) must pay for my wrongs, but it passes the test of my standard of universal justice.

If a doctrine is true, the truth of it will be the passing the "test"
How do you know that anything is wrong?
It is because it does not make sence.
Example:
2+2=7
This is wrong, therefore, it does not make sence, and because it does not make sence, you judge it to be wrong.
You can only make sence out of 2+2=4, that is because it is the only thruth of the equation.
Why not do this with theology/doctrine.

[GoBahnsen]

Livestock aren't condemnd to hell.
Babies and the unborn, still in the womb are not condemd to hell. Physical death is not judgment.
I am talking about judgment and hell, not about physical death.

How do you see it justifyable, if all the Amalekites including babies, and the unborn, still in the womb are condemnd to hell for the reason of not being the "elect"?

I am making a diference between death and jugment/condemnation.
Even christians die phisicaly, are we condemed?

It is not a hard teaching, you only make it out to be that way.

No. I don't like a doctrine that says an Inocent(Jesus) must pay for my wrongs, but it passes the test of my standard of universal justice.

If a doctrine is true, the truth of it will be the passing the "test"
How do you know that anything is wrong?
It is because it does not make sence.
Example:
2+2=7
This is wrong, therefore, it does not make sence, and because it does not make sence, you judge it to be wrong.
You can only make sence out of 2+2=4, that is because it is the only thruth of the equation.
Why not do this with theology/doctrine.

Ok, now it's all settled. If people would only do the math, they would come out with the truth and your position as well. Understanding the revelation given by God in Scripture is nothing more than proper math.

Why don't you get out in the public and start interviewing the man on the street, who, if he uses the universal standard of justice (as you call it), will most likely disagree with you about the justice of God in ordering the physical deaths of babies and animals. He/she will not care that it was only their physical deaths.

Of course, they will also reject my Calvinistic doctrines of predestination and election. You might win the day by getting them to agree with you that my doctrines are worse than the Amalekite "physical" thing. But they will not accept the death of babies and animals as being justice, so long as they were only physically killed.

IOW, your "universal sense of justice" will fall apart with the man on the street, when he encounters many of God's ways as found in the Bible. Let's face it Diolectic, you accept many things as being "just" of God, but you do it by faith, not mathematics. The math says that ordering the physical death of children and livestock = injustice...the very tyranny that you want to attach to the Calvinistic doctrine of election.

Nobody cares if it's physical or spiritual. Christians believe the hard things of God by faith. Even you believe some hard things that unbelievers will only shake their heads at in disgust, such as the Amalekite genocide.

Or maybe you could convince them to just do better math, and then they would see how good it was for God to order the deaths of babies.

[Diolectic]

Ok, now it's all settled. If people would only do the math, they would come out with the truth and your position as well. Understanding the revelation given by God in Scripture is nothing more than proper math.

Why would you beleive in something that son't make any sence at all?
OH, WAIT, YOU DO. SORRY.

Why don't you get out in the public and start interviewing the man on the street, who, if he uses the universal standard of justice (as you call it), will most likely disagree with you about the justice of God in ordering the physical deaths of babies and animals. He/she will not care that it was only their physical deaths.

If they undersatnd sin, they would agree.
If they look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen, thay would understand. for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Of course, they will also reject my Calvinistic doctrines of predestination and election.

You don't reject them because you reject plane logic and common sence.
You say that God has a diferent standard of justice that can not make sence, accept if you have "faith"

But they will not accept the death of babies and animals as being justice, so long as they were only physically killed.

Yes, physical death is not as bad as eternal damnation.

IOW, your "universal sense of justice" will fall apart with the man on the street, when he encounters many of God's ways as found in the Bible.

They will " fall apart" only with your interp of the scriptures.

Let's face it Diolectic, you accept many things as being "just" of God, but you do it by faith, not mathematics.

My faith is based on facts(mathematics), that is how anyone should belive.
If it ain't real, no one will believe.
I have faith because Jesus realy did hang on a tree. It isn't because I have faith that HE did.

Therefore, I accept many things as being "just" of God because they realy are justifiable. Not becuase God said it and therefore it must be true.
I don't believe the Bible just because the Bible says it's self is true. I believe the Bible because there are real substantial facts in this world that proove it to be true.

Paul & the Apostles realy did live on this Earth. They realy died for truth, not because they only "believed" in Jesus, but because They knew HIM and saw Him die and reserect.
If the Bible was not realy true, the fact that it isn't would have debunked it long ago.

The math says that ordering the physical death of children and livestock = injustice...the very tyranny that you want to attach to the Calvinistic doctrine of election.

Why are you so set on making God out to be unjustifiable?

Nobody cares if it's physical or spiritual.

If my wife only dies physicaly I am fine with that because I will see her again.
If she is condemnd to hell only for the reason of God not wanting her(non-elect), I would be upset and anyone els would be too.
If she is condemnd to hell for the reason of her rejecting God(not HIM rejecting her) I would still be upset, but it would be justified.

Christians believe the hard things of God by faith.

Faith does not mean leaving you brain at the door, nor does it mean denying your sence of justice, reasoning, common sence...ect...
Faith is substantial evidence of our hope, and a right response to God. This hope is not a wish but a knowledge(factual, reality) in which we await(Hebrews 11:1).

Or maybe you could convince them to just do better math, and then they would see how good it was for God to order the deaths of babies.

That is how it is done.
Help them understand and they will eccept the truth.
Mat 13:23a But he that received seed in the good ground is he that hears the word, and understands it...

Who in there right mind would believe anything that does not make sence logicaly, reasonably, justifiably?
Why do you?
How do you?

[Diolectic]

Ok, now it's all settled. If people would only do the math.

Math, mathematics = facts

[GoBahnsen]

Why are you so set on making God out to be unjustifiable?

I can't seem to find anything rational in you that I can gain some agreement from you. I figured that you would not see my point, and accuse me of finding God to be unjust. Even though I kept telling you that I do not accuse God of being unjust...EVER. I was trying (in vain) to show you that the man on the street won't justify God with his sense of universal justice.

Let's start over. Your screen name is Diolectic, correct? If you refuse to agree with me that your screen name is Diolectic, then we cannot proceed any further. I believe that your screen name is Diolectic. Do you concur?

[GoBahnsen]

If my wife only dies physicaly I am fine with that because I will see her again.

Calivinist' husbands feel the same way.

If she is condemnd to hell only for the reason of God not wanting her(non-elect), I would be upset and anyone els would be too.

Calvinists would be upset too, if she never sinned and brought God's wrath upon herself, but was still sent to hell.

If she is condemnd to hell for the reason of her rejecting God(not HIM rejecting her) I would still be upset, but it would be justified.

Upset with who? Her, for not doing the math? Or God for fashioning a vessel of dishonor?

[auggybendoggy]

Diolectic wrote:
B. PHARAOH HARDENED HIS OWN HEART...
If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, the Scripture would be specific about God doing the hardening as the Scriptures do .
1. And Pharaoh's heart grew hard (chazaq), and he did not heed
them, as the Lord had said. - Exo 7:13
2. So the Lord said to Moses: "Pharaoh's heart is hard (kabed); he
refuses to let the people go." - Exo 7:14
3. Then the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments; and
Pharaoh's heart grew hard (chazaq), and he did not heed them,
as the Lord had said. - Exo 7:22
4. But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened (kabed)
his heart and did not heed them, as the Lord had said. - Exo 8:15
5. Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of
God." But Pharaoh's heart grew hard (chazaq), and he did not
heed them, just as the Lord had said. - Exo 8:19
6. But Pharaoh hardened (kabed) his heart at this time also;
neither would he let the people go. - Exo 8:32
7. Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of
the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard
(kabed), and he did not let the people go. - Exo 9:7

THEN GOD HARDENED PHARAOH'S HEART...
-- Not until the sixth plague did God begin to harden Pharaoh's heart
1.[/b] But the Lord hardened (chazaq) the heart of Pharaoh; and he did
not heed them, just as the Lord had spoken to Moses. - Exo 9:12
2. Now the Lord said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have
hardened (kabed) his heart and the hearts of his servants, that
I may show these signs of Mine before him," - Exo 10:1
3. But the Lord hardened (chazaq) Pharaoh's heart, and he did not
let the children of Israel go.- Exo 10:20
4. But the Lord hardened (chazaq) Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let
them go.- Exo 10:27
5. So Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and
the Lord hardened (chazaq) Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let
the children of Israel go out of his land. - Exo 11:10
6. Then I will harden (chazaq) Pharaoh's heart, so that he will
pursue them; and I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all
his army, that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord.
- Exo 14:4
7. And the Lord hardened (chazaq) the heart of Pharaoh king of
Egypt, and he pursued the children of Israel; and the children
of Israel went out with boldness. - Exo 14:8
8. And I indeed will harden (chazaq) the hearts of the Egyptians,
and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh
and over all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen. - Exo
14:17

I think you (like Thomas Talbott) forgot to read Exodus 4
21The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all (W)the wonders which I have put in your power; but (X)I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Why is it that God told moses FROM THE START, go to pharoa and tell him let isreal go...I WILL HARDEN HIS HEART SO THAT he will not let isreal go.

it seems that it is ODDLY rendered that God meant...
"moses, go to pharoa and lets HOPE that he doesnt let my people go when we ask him to let them go".

So now you ask but why would God want pharoa to NOT LET THEM GO.

come on now, UR baby! (ok ok I won't toot our horn), but seriously
I find it hard to dismiss the calvinistic claim that God did not harden pharoa from the get to both in light of Exodus 4 and romans 9.

Aug

[GoBahnsen]

[COLOR=blue]

I think you (like Thomas Talbott) forgot to read Exodus 4
21The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all (W)the wonders which I have put in your power; but (X)I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Why is it that God told moses FROM THE START, go to pharoa and tell him let isreal go...I WILL HARDEN HIS HEART SO THAT he will not let isreal go.

it seems that it is ODDLY rendered that God meant...
"moses, go to pharoa and lets HOPE that he doesnt let my people go when we ask him to let them go".

So now you ask but why would God want pharoa to NOT LET THEM GO.

come on now, UR baby! (ok ok I won't toot our horn), but seriously
I find it hard to dismiss the calvinistic claim that God did not harden pharoa from the get to both in light of Exodus 4 and romans 9.

Aug

This whole thread has been frustrating. I have reminded Dio that the Calvinistic camp contains some of the greatest minds of logic and sound reason throughout history. All he can say back to us is that we don't do the math.

I wonder Aug, did you see my point about the Amalekites? Did you see how I only wanted to point out that the Bible contains many pills, hard to swallow?

This doesn't prove that Calvinism is true, with some of it's hard pills, but I do think I succeeded in showing Dio that he can't simply sit back and take pot shots at Calivinism's difficulties, while acting as though there aren't other doctrines, accepted by all Christians that test the human capacity to embrace as being perfectly just.

Again, the parable of the workers is classic. Jesus knew that He had to use that parable, because humans are so fond of thinking that they know justice, when they see it. "Hey, what are you doing giving those guys a full day's pay for only one hour? We've been sweating all day for it! Something is wrong here and we demand justice!"

Jesus let's them know what the problem was. Their eyes were evil because of God's goodness. Go figure again Dio. You think you have the God of Calvinism pegged with tyranny, not realizing that it was good of God to fashion vessels of dishonor, in order to display His justice in them.

It was good to rid the earth of the Amalekites, not leaving a single one, nor their livestock. We know that by faith in God's righteousness. We do not know it by the kind of "universal justice" the workers of the field held to.

[auggybendoggy]

Gob,
My thoughts are that dio has not thought out the sacrifices made to determinism.

Yes the amalekits and cannanites are VERY hard passages for christians to explain. Most of us hit the eject button on the issue of "what God does" or better put "what would Jesus do with cannan?"

You seem to be growing from my perspective Gob as I hear you clearly stating that we all have difficulties. If a FW thinkers believes he has no weakness he is blind.

I recently learned that throwing stones at the other side for it's deficits does NOTHING!

Most of us know all too well the arguments made by the other side and yet we are DETERMINED to prove the thing that we embrace.

It's similar to my last post that Dio (even talbott who I admire) seem to look past Exodus 4 when God tells moses he's going to send him to pharoah. This is before the FIRST plauge and God tells moses HE WILL HARDEN HIS HEART SO THAT HE WILL NOT LET ISREAL GO.

People just cant accept this FACT and so they have to fiddle with the natural reading. For example they may say...
God simply meant..."I will harden his heart (later) so that he will not let my people go, and I will HOPE he does not let my people go on the first call"...
WHY WOULD HE WANT PHAROAH TO LET ISREAL GO ON THE FIRST CALL, IF HE DID NOT WANT HIM TO LET THEM GO ON THE SIXTH CALL.

Ok so one can argue God DID want him to let the people go, then why harden on the sixth call when he could have softened?

God's word in chapter 4 are FOR THE FIRST CALL and therfore must be given as grounds for argument for the calvinist.

You and a Calv dont struggle with this because you deem God as being all powerful and able to move men. We as UR don't have a problem as we believe God BOUND men to disob. to have mercy on them. Arms have to bend the ideas in order to support thier position that God did not CAUSE pharoah to NOT LET HIS PEOPLE GO. I take that's exactly what God did so that his power might be displayed to the whold world (the exodus); which I believe is mercy for all men.

But yea, I sympathize with you and for me to extinguish determinism seems to leave me empty and feeling like God cares more about me choosing him than about him choosing me.
I perfer to think God is determined to save me, God is capable of saving me, God has saved me, God will save me. OR AS LUCAS PUTS IT....THE LOVE A FATHER HAS FOR HIS SON.

Aug

[GoBahnsen]

Gob,
My thoughts are that dio has not thought out the sacrifices made to determinism.

Yes the amalekits and cannanites are VERY hard passages for christians to explain. Most of us hit the eject button on the issue of "what God does" or better put "what would Jesus do with cannan?"

You seem to be growing from my perspective Gob as I hear you clearly stating that we all have difficulties. If a FW thinkers believes he has no weakness he is blind.

I recently learned that throwing stones at the other side for it's deficits does NOTHING!

Most of us know all too well the arguments made by the other side and yet we are DETERMINED to prove the thing that we embrace.

It's similar to my last post that Dio (even talbott who I admire) seem to look past Exodus 4 when God tells moses he's going to send him to pharoah. This is before the FIRST plauge and God tells moses HE WILL HARDEN HIS HEART SO THAT HE WILL NOT LET ISREAL GO.

People just cant accept this FACT and so they have to fiddle with the natural reading. For example they may say...
God simply meant..."I will harden his heart (later) so that he will not let my people go, and I will HOPE he does not let my people go on the first call"...
WHY WOULD HE WANT PHAROAH TO LET ISREAL GO ON THE FIRST CALL, IF HE DID NOT WANT HIM TO LET THEM GO ON THE SIXTH CALL.

Ok so one can argue God DID want him to let the people go, then why harden on the sixth call when he could have softened?

God's word in chapter 4 are FOR THE FIRST CALL and therfore must be given as grounds for argument for the calvinist.

You and a Calv dont struggle with this because you deem God as being all powerful and able to move men. We as UR don't have a problem as we believe God BOUND men to disob. to have mercy on them. Arms have to bend the ideas in order to support thier position that God did not CAUSE pharoah to NOT LET HIS PEOPLE GO. I take that's exactly what God did so that his power might be displayed to the whold world (the exodus); which I believe is mercy for all men.

But yea, I sympathize with you and for me to extinguish determinism seems to leave me empty and feeling like God cares more about me choosing him than about him choosing me.
I perfer to think God is determined to save me, God is capable of saving me, God has saved me, God will save me. OR AS LUCAS PUTS IT....THE LOVE A FATHER HAS FOR HIS SON.

Aug

Well Aug, as much as I oppose UR, I must say that you are a winsome type. Which makes you all the more dangerous, if UR is false.

Anyway, I would feel a sense of satisfaction if Dio would just admit that he accepts things that he cannot fully understand or fully get in line with his common horse sense about justice. I can just see Dio in that parable, complaining about not getting more money, if those who only work a little, get the same as he, after he spent so much time in the hot sun. It's just not fair!

Guess again. The Master can be more generous to some than others. No one gets injustice from God. Even if they were made to be vessels of dishonor. God can do what He wants with His own clay. Shall the clay say back to Him "why have you made me like this?"

And in the case of our own Diolectic, he simply has no stomach for a Creator who will do what He wills to do with His lump of clay. No stomach for a Creator who will have mercy upon whom He will and whom he wills, He hardeneth.