CBear

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@DineshDSouza I’m pretty sure Calvinists and Marxists share nothing in common. I’m sorry your feelings are hurt though.

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@ScottRoberts Jesus died to save sinners.

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@Highway_30 Keep pushing the W on this. They need to define what a woman is - otherwise if they won’t, you’re eligible.

[ThePersistence @ScottPresler]

Democrats are in a full-blown panicked meltdown right now

because they know they can’t win without cheating.

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@rogerecoff Do you mean: The body of Christ would be much healthier if we ignored the Scriptures. Did I get that right? 🥀😭

[Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee]

With today’s SCOTUS ruling, President Trump has made a giant leap forward in securing our 2026 elections

Congress must still pass the SAVE America Act to secure future elections

We should’ve passed it months ago

Thankfully, President Trump is making up for what we haven’t done

[ThePersistence @ScottPresler]

VICTORY!

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to allow President Trump’s Executive Order on mail-in ballots for this November’s elections to continue.

The EO directs the United States Postal Service to ONLY deliver mail-in ballots to eligible voters.

How could anyone be against this?

Opponents to only lawful voters receiving ballots are having a MELTDOWN over this victory.

[Andrew Kolvet @AndrewKolvet]

BREAKING: The Supreme Court will allow President Trump's mail-in ballot EO to take effect.

The EO calls on his administration to create a federal list of eligible voters and orders the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to people on each state's list.

It was a 6-3 decision divided on ideological lines, and the Court didn't rule on the legality of the EO, only that the states didn't have a legal right to challenge it at this stage.

“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell," wrote the Court.

Blue states are expected to continuing legal challenges to how the US Postal Service implements the EO, so this is sadly, not the end of the saga.

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@nickitruesdell @mattvanswol

[JD Vance @JDVance]

If an American corporation needs workers, it should hire and train Americans.

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@Joseph_Spurgeon 😆🤣

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@JeffTaylorLR Amazingly well said

[Jeff Taylor @JeffTaylorLR]

The Ellis/D’Souza objection collapses because it assumes, without argument, that divine love must be uniform, non‑elective, and obligatorily maximal toward every human creature. That assumption is never defended; it is simply presupposed. Once presupposed, any doctrine of election becomes “monstrous” by definitional fiat. The argument therefore commits the elementary logical error of smuggling the conclusion into the premise.

Second, the objection equivocates on the term love. It treats love as a distributive attribute—something God must parcel out identically to all—rather than as a covenantal mode of divine self‑giving. In Scripture, divine love is architecturally differentiated: Israel is loved in a way Egypt is not; the church is loved in a way the world is not; the Son is loved in a way no creature ever will be. To insist that elective mercy is a defect is to insist that the biblical pattern itself is defective. The argument therefore fails at the level of textual ontology.

Third, the objection assumes that mercy is something God owes to creatures simply by virtue of their creaturehood. But mercy, by definition, is non‑obligatory. To treat mercy as an entitlement is to destroy the category. The critique thus commits a category error: it treats grace as debt. Once grace becomes debt, the entire Pauline structure collapses.

Fourth, the objection treats divine freedom as morally suspect. If God is free to differentiate, they conclude He is unjust. But that conclusion only follows if one assumes that justice requires equal outcomes rather than righteous action. That is not a biblical definition of justice; it is a modern egalitarian one. The argument therefore imports a foreign moral framework and then condemns Calvinism for not conforming to it.

Finally, the rhetoric of “God makes defective humans” is not an argument but a projection. It presupposes that human fallenness is a divine manufacturing flaw rather than a covenantal rupture. That is not Calvinism; that is not Arminianism; that is not historic Christianity. It is simply a category mistake: confusing ontology with covenant history.

In sum, the critique is not a refutation of Calvinism. It is a refutation of a theological system the critics have invented by assuming their conclusion, redefining biblical categories, and importing alien moral axioms. It is structurally invalid from the first premise.

#CovenantalCategories
#ElectiveMercyIsNotDebt
#CreatorCreatureDistinction
#BiblicalLoveIsDifferentiated
#GraceIsNotEntitlement

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@Biblicalman False. It is a framework that we believe accurately interprets what is in the whole of Scripture. It begins with Scripture.

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@RGIII No it isn’t lame. He forcing the WNBA to take a stance on women. Either defend them or don’t!!!

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@ForePlayPod Scottie

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@Soteriology101 @_jonbowlin I wouldn’t measure God’s successes by sinners’ failures

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@realJennaEllis The problem is that many view God’s obligation to love as preeminent, but they forget that He is also a God of justice and hates sin. He is under no obligation to save anyone.
Sin condemns all to eternal punishment - that is justice.
Only Christ’s atonement saves.

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@TodAshby Well said

[CBear @jcbear2018]

@megbasham @LindaLlivings Thank you for picking up this story and promoting it. I’m a Baylor grad.
@Baylor has been such a disappointment in its “witness” for Christ.
Praying that they will come back to orthodoxy before it’s too late, and they become just another secular school with a “Christian” tag.