PDA

View Full Version : Does Calvinism limit God?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Poly
January 12th, 2004, 01:03 PM
I touched on this on another thread but I want to get other views on this. Does Calvinism limit God? Those that believe God predestined everything must admit one of 2 things. Either God was not powerful enough to give man a true freewill or He was powerful enough but instead chose to pre-program everybody's will.
Could God not create life on this Earth without predestinating every event? If your answer is no then you limit God. If your answer is yes then you have to either deny predestination or believe He chose this way though He didn't have to. So why would a loving God choose to pre-arrange a woman being raped, a person being murdered, etc.? If you say it is to bring about His glory, is He not powerful enough to bring it about without this having to happen? I say He is. I say that since He truly is the living and loving God, if there be any other way to bring about His glory without having to do that which is against His nature then of course He would go this route. I believe He is so powerful, infact, that His glory will be established despite the evil of man. He's so powerful, He could give man his very own freewill yet man's own wickedness will never take away from God's power, glory and sovereignty.

servent101
January 12th, 2004, 02:11 PM
Poly


I touched on this on another thread but I want to get other views on this. Does Calvinism limit God?

I have anoter view - I will try to keep it short - There is a new heaven and a new earth promised - if and when we get there - the rules change - and what is pre-destined is going to come about - the end of the age - the enialation etc.- and if you follow "other Scriptures" then the re-birth - a new Creation is then established. I believe the ciriculum stays the same for us - reap what you sow, and for those who sow in the Lord's field there is eternal life, for those who don't there is classroom earth to teach us the consequences of our actions - I don't believe ther eis a literal hell. But for predestination - I think God is working out everyone's salvation - and for some it will be a long painful process.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Knight
January 12th, 2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by servent101

Poly



I have anoter view - I will try to keep it short - There is a new heaven and a new earth promised - if and when we get there - the rules change - and what is pre-destined is going to come about - the end of the age - the enialation etc.- and if you follow "other Scriptures" then the re-birth - a new Creation is then established. I believe the ciriculum stays the same for us - reap what you sow, and for those who sow in the Lord's field there is eternal life, for those who don't there is classroom earth to teach us the consequences of our actions - I don't believe ther eis a literal hell. But for predestination - I think God is working out everyone's salvation - and for some it will be a long painful process.

With Christ's Love

Servent101 Interesting view....

Did you invent this view yourself?

Poly
January 12th, 2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by servent101

Poly



I have anoter view - I will try to keep it short - There is a new heaven and a new earth promised - if and when we get there - the rules change - and what is pre-destined is going to come about - the end of the age - the enialation etc.- and if you follow "other Scriptures" then the re-birth - a new Creation is then established. I believe the ciriculum stays the same for us - reap what you sow, and for those who sow in the Lord's field there is eternal life, for those who don't there is classroom earth to teach us the consequences of our actions - I don't believe ther eis a literal hell. But for predestination - I think God is working out everyone's salvation - and for some it will be a long painful process.

With Christ's Love

Servent101
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Maybe you can get back with us when a few more of your braincells to start perkin' up.

Knight
January 12th, 2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Poly

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Maybe you can get back with us when a few more of your braincells to start perkin' up. :chuckle:

Knight
January 12th, 2004, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Lucky

Maybe you should hold off on reading that. At least wait til your brain cells start to perk up. Are you agreeing with 101's post? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Tye Porter
January 13th, 2004, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Poly
Those that believe God predestined everything must admit one of 2 things. Either God was not powerful enough to give man a true freewill or He was powerful enough but instead chose to pre-program everybody's will.
Do you there may be another way to see this?
God granted man a freewill.
Is God not powerful enough to correct/control man's will, or does man have the ultimate power and control God with our own will?

Could God not create life on this Earth without predestinating every event?
Did Knight himself not use a Bible verse pointing out the God directs our steps?

So why would a loving God choose to pre-arrange a woman being raped, a person being murdered, etc.?
Does the Bible read that God causes evil?

He's so powerful, He could give man his very own freewill yet man's own wickedness will never take away from God's power, glory and sovereignty.
Is He powerful enough that in spite of man's freewill, He can still direct our footsteps as He says He does?

jobeth
January 13th, 2004, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by Poly
Those that believe God predestined everything must admit one of 2 things. Either God was not powerful enough to give man a true freewill or He was powerful enough but instead chose to pre-program everybody's will.
I believe that God is powerful enough to give man a freewill. But He's not that stupid.

Could God not create life on this Earth without predestinating every event?
Yes, He could. And that is just the kind of world that will exist for those who are separated from God's control. Which would seem to be good for them, since that's what they wanted. But our Lord warned us that they won't actually be happy being separated from God's control. What a dilemma. On the one hand they want to be in Heaven rather than hell, but on the other hand they don't want to give up their free will to live in a world where only God's will is done.

Don't you know that everyone who will get into heaven will have first surrendered their will to God? And if you surrendered you will to God, then how can you claim to still have a will of your own?

jobeth
January 13th, 2004, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Tye Porter
God granted man a freewill.
Is God not powerful enough to correct/control man's will, or does man have the ultimate power and control God with our own will?
I think you misunderstand. Freewill means "freedom from God's control". So saying that man has a freewill that God controls is kind of an oxymoron.

Did Knight himself not use a Bible verse pointing out the God directs our steps? Of course God directs our steps. He is Lord over all, whether anyone believes or acknowledges that fact or not.

Does the Bible read that God causes evil?
As a matter of fact, it does.
Is 45:7; Amos 3:6; Hab 3:5; Lam 3:38; Prov 16:4 et al


Is He powerful enough that in spite of man's freewill, He can still direct our footsteps as He says He does? Freewill is a human myth based on a Satanic lie.

Behira
January 13th, 2004, 02:18 AM
All denominations limit G-d by their dogma.

geralduk
January 13th, 2004, 07:35 AM
No.
It speaks of God as it is written.
and of man as it is written.

it limits man.
and there is the 'rub' for some people.

geralduk
January 13th, 2004, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Behira

All denominations limit G-d by their dogma.

Men 'limit' what God can DO by thier belief that a PART is the WHOLE.

AND EVEN A "SOUND DOCTRIN" is not ALL DOCTRIN.

When Peter had come to the revalation of who Christ WAS.
Though he was RIGHT and he had come to a knowledge of the truth pertaining to WHO Christ was.
When the LORD seeking to BUILD on that foundation "went a little further"and began to FURTHER REVEAL what was NEXT in the progresive puproses of God.
Peter began to reject it and began to even disuade the LORD from it.
Because it did not FIT with HIS understanding OF THE TRUTH.
but taking the PART that he DID KNOW.made it out to be the WHOLE.

Thus we have CALVIN AND LUTHOR AND DISPENSATIONISST AND COVENENT THEOLOGY and all the other 'systems' (if they be FOUNDED ON THE TRUTH of course)
Our 'systems' have become our 'god' almost.
The LORD did not undermine or throw away the TRUTH of what PETER KNEW.But it was on THAT foundation that HE BEGAN to REVEAL MORE!
But we have so REDUCED the gospel to being BORNagain(for the sake of 'peace'?)That we have rejected WHAT COMES AFTER!
Perhaps for the same reason?
For the lord began to speak of the SUFFERING and the CROSS.
and where as we hear A LOT concerning that to 'CELEBRATE' about.
we do not hear much about the CROSS.

Are we not to "take up OUR CROSS daily and folow Him"?

The cross is a place of DEATH.
and SELF DENIAL.
AND seekign FIRST the kingdom of God and HIS rightousness.
and OBEDIENCE" even unto the death of the cross" IF NEED BE.

That is why perhaps men are HAPPY to DEBATE the cross but not to HANG ON IT.

We rejoice that christ died for us.
But perhaps are not so overjoyed in 'dying' for Him?

We are heading for VERY SERIOS days AHEAD.
AND THE STORM CLOUDS are already gathering.
the ONLY safe place is WITH Him.
NOT "AFAR off"

The question is will we HOLD TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD that we in truth "know" and seek FIRST the kingdom of God and HIS rightousness..." and set our faces as FLINTS to DO what we know and if we do we will find that, we too will have to suffer persecutions and trials.
Not in any measure as comparable to His.
But nevertheless suffer them we must.
"For they that live GODLY in Christ JESUS (listen) WILL suffer persecution"

The church does not 'live' by saving itself.
But by GIVING itself and laying down its life "fro My sake and the gospels"
and when we build walls for our OWN protection rather leave our life in Gods hands we STAGNATE.
Most debates on thses forums are done from BEHIND the high walls of the varios 'schools' of theology.
to which each defends as HE sees fit.
But the kingdom of God is likened unto a man who WENT OUT to SOW. and while we know that the enemey has his own sowers.
nevertheless the we should be doing more and WATCHING.
It was while MEN SLEPT that hsi enemy came and sowed tares!

So the ONLY thing that 'limits' God in a sense is mans UNBELIEF.
"For He could do NO WORK there for thier unbelief"
Notwithstanding that God'swill is DONE and NO man can stop it.
It just is not done in them.
Not to Gods 'hurt' but to thier own. But to them that believe not Gods will is done there also but according to that which pertains to them who do not believe.

But to them who DO BELIEVE .........."ALL things are possible" according to the will of God.

servent101
January 13th, 2004, 09:25 AM
Poly Ė I will try to make my post a little more understandable Ė

I have another view - I will try to keep it short - There is a new heaven and a new earth promised - if and when we get there - the rules change - and what is pre-destined for this current earth is not going to come about Ė example - the end of the age - the inhalation etc. If you follow "other Scriptures" then the re-birth - a new Creation is then established after the inhalation. I believe the curriculum stays the same for us for eternity Ė those who are saved. The reap what you sow, still applies in the old earth - and for those who sow in the Lord's field there is eternal life, for those who don't there is classroom earth to teach us the consequences of our actions - I don't believe there is some sort of predestination Ė yet in some sense it could be considered predestination - I think God is working out everyone's salvation - and for some it will be a long painful process, a lot like going through hell Ė and some souls were simply not meant to contemplate God conscious matters Ė there are other forms of life their souls can have that are more suiting to their nature Ė but nothing stays the same for an eternity.

If you could not understand my first post, I am sorry Ė I was rushed and the post was not finished properly Ė there is Scripture I could quote about the new earth and new heaven Ė I think it is Biblically sound.

I will toss this back to you

With Christís Love

Servent101

Poly
January 13th, 2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Tye Porter


Is God not powerful enough to correct/control man's will...

Correct and control are 2 different things. There are ways that He can correct a situation, done out of our stupidity or bad choice, if He so desires, without having having to pre-program what our actions will be. If a father catches his son stealing, he can be a part of correcting that situation. He disciplines the child, makes the child give the money back and then some or whatever he thinks necessary in making this circumstance better.

... or does man have the ultimate power and control God with our own will?
Does man put God in a difficult situation where he bites His nails and worries Himself to death over what He's going to do since man did something that "never entered His mind" or something that God would rather him not do? No. That's just it. That's how powerful and how much God should be trusted. He is incredibly wise and knows man better than we know ourselves. I know what kind of actions my kids will take and reactions they will have in particular situations but I didn't have to program them in order to know it. How much more and on a greater level, does God know us?

Did Knight himself not use a Bible verse pointing out the God directs our steps?
It doesn't surprise me that He did since there are several. Again I use the example of parents. If a father raises and instructs his child in the way he should go, has he not directed his steps? Must all passages speaking of God doing this, mean that all of our actions were predestined?

Does the Bible read that God causes evil? No


Is He powerful enough that in spite of man's freewill, He can still direct our footsteps as He says He does? Yes, just as I described 2 quotes ago.

Knight
January 13th, 2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by jobeth

I think you misunderstand. Freewill means "freedom from God's control". So saying that man has a freewill that God controls is kind of an oxymoron. JoBeth that is a false dilemma.

God chose to give us a will of our own yet He controls the limits of that will therefore your statement is has no logical foundation.

You continue...
Of course God directs our steps. He is Lord over all, whether anyone believes or acknowledges that fact or not. I prefer to believe God instead of JoBeth. JoBeth says God directs man's steps whether man believes in Him or not, yet God says just the opposite...
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. Therefore God disagrees with JoBeth.

You continue....
Freewill is a human myth based on a Satanic lie. ROTFL..... :D.

JoBeth.... don't you realize what you are saying?

You claim God controls every aspect of every created being.

Therefore IF freewill is a Satanic lie THEN freewill is a Satanic lie created and directed by God!

smaller
January 13th, 2004, 10:58 AM
Colossians 1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Are there EXCEPTIONS to ALL THINGS?

God might actually KNOW what He is doing eh?

Knight
January 13th, 2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by smaller

Colossians 1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Are there EXCEPTIONS to ALL THINGS?

God might actually KNOW what He is doing eh? Of course there are exceptions!!!

Maybe Smaller can answer for us these simple questions....

At creation.....

Did God create love?
Did God create righteousness?
Did God create Himself?

Rolf Ernst
January 13th, 2004, 09:09 PM
poly--You make two premises in your first post on this thread which are false. A false premise, if believed, will always lead to false conclusions.
As proof that your premises are false, let me see you reconcile them with Psalm 33:10,11 "The Lord brings the counsel of the heathen to nothing. He makes the devices of the people of no effect. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations." and "He frustrates the purposes of the crafty so that their hands cannot perform their plans."
You see, your mistake is that you think man has the power to do whatever he pleases and God has to like it, or lump it. MISTAKE! BIG MISTAKE! It is the other way around. Man (or satan)
can only do what God is pleased for them to accomplish.
OH, SURE! MAN HAS FREE WILL, ALRIGHT; but he has no power to DO what he wills to do unless God is pleased to allow it for His own reason.

"WHO IS HE WHO SAYS AND IT COMES TO PASS WHEN THE LORD HAS NOT COMMANDED IT?"

Don't get confused over that. Just ask Him for understanding.

jobeth
January 13th, 2004, 09:38 PM
What, exactly, is man's freewill free from if not God's (or anyone else's) control?

I don't know what it means to say that man has a freewill that is controlled, (Tye?) or limited, (Knight?) or restrained, (Rolf?) by God. Doesn't that mean man's will is NOT free?

Knight
January 13th, 2004, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by jobeth

What, exactly, is man's freewill free from if not God's (or anyone else's) control?

I don't know what it means to say that man has a freewill that is controlled, (Tye?) or limited, (Knight?) or restrained, (Rolf?) by God. Doesn't that mean man's will is NOT free? Good question.... yet simple answer.

God created us and delegated that we have our own wills. Yet these wills have logical limitations that are by God's design.

For instance... although we have the freewill and ability to choose and follow God we DO NOT have the freewill nor ability to save ourselves without God's help. Therefore we have freewill within the scope that God ordained.

Lucky
January 13th, 2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Good question.... yet simple answer.

God created us and delegated that we have our own wills. Yet these wills have logical limitations that are by God's design.

For instance... although we have the freewill and ability to choose and follow God we DO NOT have the freewill nor ability to save ourselves without God's help. Therefore we have freewill within the scope that God ordained.
Thanks for clearing that up, Knight. Now I'm way confused as to what you believe! :chuckle:

jobeth
January 13th, 2004, 11:10 PM
So are we as free as a bird in a cage? Is that what you are saying?

Tye Porter
January 13th, 2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Lucky

Thanks for clearing that up, Knight. Now I'm way confused as to what you believe! :chuckle:

:thumb: He argues both sides and once he confused me he started ignoring me.
You'd better take it back before you get the cold shoulder. :D

Tye Porter
January 14th, 2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Poly
Correct and control are 2 different things. There are ways that He can correct a situation, done out of our stupidity or bad choice, if He so desires, without having having to pre-program what our actions will be. If a father catches his son stealing, he can be a part of correcting that situation. He disciplines the child, makes the child give the money back and then some or whatever he thinks necessary in making this circumstance better.
Good response!
So if God regretted/wished something did not happen, like a Good Father, He would take corrective steps?
Does this mean, for example, that if Judas did not betray Jesus, that God would have taken corrective actions to see that somebody else did?
If God told us, through John, that in the end times a certain event would happen, but man and his wicked will took history in another direction, God would take corrective actions?
Would not directing our paths and correcting our missteps be "controlling" our future, even while granting the lost free will?

Poly
January 14th, 2004, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Tye Porter


So if God regretted/wished something did not happen, like a Good Father, He would take corrective steps?

Corrective steps as in correcting man's sin? Yes.
Before the flood, God said He was sorry that He made man. He could either allow man to keep going in his downward spiral for generations to come, never getting the chance to experience God due to the severity of such sin at the time or God could be merciful and stop this destruction as He did and start over.

Does this mean, for example, that if Judas did not betray Jesus, that God would have taken corrective actions to see that somebody else did?
If Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus I just can't see this being a roadblock for God. "Great, Judas! You didn't betray Jesus like I'd hoped you would. Now everything is ruined!". There would really be no "corrective action" to take here since this suggests that Judas doing the right thing would need to be corrected. Bottom line is, people wanted Jesus dead...period. If Judas hadn't betrayed Him, this would not have stopped people from finding a way to kill Him.

Would not directing our paths and correcting our missteps be "controlling" our future, even while granting the lost free will?
If you mean "controlling" as in the example of the Father taking corrective actions against the son that stole, then yes.

jobeth
January 14th, 2004, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Poly

If you mean "controlling" as in the example of the Father taking corrective actions against the son that stole, then yes.

So are you saying that we are no more free from God's control than a minor dependent child is free from their father's control?

Would you say we have more or less freedom from God's control than a minor dependent child has from its parents' control?

Tye:
I get your point. If Judas had not betrayed Jesus such that Jesus had not been handed over to the authorities, and because of Judas' failure to act, Jesus had been allowed to slip through their fingers once more, and lived to a ripe old age, and died of natural causes, then we would, gasp! still be in our sins, wouldn't we?

Tye Porter
January 15th, 2004, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Poly
If you mean "controlling" as in the example of the Father taking corrective actions against the son that stole, then yes.
Does the father direct his son's steps, as a controlling method?

Knight pointed out (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=433425#post433425), several times, making it very clear, that while a man's wicked heart may plan his own ways, the Lord steps in and directs his paths.
You and I may desire and make plans, but God "corrects" us and directs our paths.
Knight goes on... (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=433618#post433618)
He shows that while we make preparations, the ultimate answer comes from the Lord.
That God establishes our thoughts.


As you can see, the Bible clearly states that while we have the freewill to make our choices/desires/plans, the Lord directs our paths/thoughts.
He is in ultimate control of where we are going.
Our future is not open if God is directing where it is we are going and what we are thinking on the way there.

Poly
January 15th, 2004, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Tye Porter



Knight pointed out (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=433425#post433425), several times, making it very clear, that while a man's wicked heart may plan his own ways, the Lord steps in and directs his paths.


:confused: You'll have to show me where Knight said that a man's wicked heart gets his paths directed by God.
Originally posted by Knight

Us men have our own heart - and our own will.... but if we rely of God He will direct our steps. If man had no will why would God have said... "A manís heart plans his way,?

Lets drive home the point.....

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.

"lean not on your own understanding;" Our own understanding?????? How can we have our "own understanding" if we have no will of our own? And why does God go to the trouble of telling us to acknowledge Him so that He can direct our paths if we can't help but have Him direct our paths???

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.

QUESTION: When does He direct our paths???????
ANSWER: When we lean not on our own understandings and acknowledge Him in all of our ways.



It seems pretty clear to me that He was saying that those that "lean not on their own understanding" and those that "Trust in the Lord" are the ones that get their paths directed by the Lord. I think you know this too and are just trying to twist words.

Originally posted by Tye Porter

Knight goes on... (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=433618#post433618)
He shows that while we make preparations, the ultimate answer comes from the Lord.
That God establishes our thoughts.

Again, I have no idea where you're getting this.

Originally posted by Knight Isn't this a simple concept? How much more clear could God be? IF... you commit your works to the LORD... THEN... your thoughts will be established.

Isn't this a miniature version of the entire gospel message? Put your trust in God and He will guide your ways.

Which is exactly why I brought up....
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.

This is like step by step instruction from God...

1. Trust in the LORD with all your heart
2. lean not on your own understanding
3. In all your ways acknowledge Him
4. And He shall direct your paths.

You seem less than sincere in your "Hey, what's the big deal? I'm only trying to seek answers here. You're just misunderstanding" comments.

Originally posted by Tye Porter

As you can see, the Bible clearly states that while we have the freewill to make our choices/desires/plans, the Lord directs our paths/thoughts.
He is in ultimate control of where we are going.

No, I don't clearly see this. But as you can clearly see, by the verses given early, what the bible states is that the one who trusts and seeks God is the one whose paths will be directed by Him.


Originally posted by Tye Porter
Our future is not open if God is directing where it is we are going and what we are thinking on the way there.
Why not? God directs us along the way in real time, at the very present moment we are in, freeing Him to make decisions right now concerning us. Sounds open to me.

Tye Porter
January 15th, 2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Poly
I have no idea where you're getting this.
No, I don't clearly see this.

But as you can clearly see, by the verses given early, what the bible states is that the one who trusts and seeks God is the one whose paths will be directed by Him.
Good, you're getting closer.
You've come to the point where you see that man has free will to choose God or deny Him.
Once we've chosen Him, our future is closed.
We become stewards of the Will of God.
He directs our paths.


Why not? God directs us along the way in real time, at the very present moment we are in, freeing Him to make decisions right now concerning us. Sounds open to me.

How can you double speak like that?
You say that God directs you along, in real time, then you say that is "open"?
You used your freewill, "X" years ago to choose God.
You seek Him.
You acknowledge Him.
You trust in Him.

He directs you.
He controls your path.
It is closed.


I think you may be going two ways here.
You, like Knight, are showing me that the future is closed.

You can have it either way, it's not a salvation issue.
Except that it kinda may be.

I asked Knight this and maybe I ought to ask you this too. (it's coming)

You two have shown me, very clearly, that the future is closed.
Controlled/Directed by God, for those who are saved.

If you can take what you've shown me and still claim that the future is open, does this mean that you two think that you can loose your salvation?

If God directs that path of a saved man but his future is still open, that would mean that God is directing it only off and on.
Which, according to what you and Knight have shown me, would mean that you are seeking Him, then not, then seeking him, then not.
Kinda like Zakath.
He claims to have been a Christian, and now he's not.

What do you think?

Poly
January 15th, 2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Tye Porter

Good, you're getting closer.

Tye, don't patronize me.


You say that God directs you along, in real time, then you say that is "open"?
Yes

You used your freewill, "X" years ago to choose God.
You seek Him.
You acknowledge Him.
You trust in Him.

He directs you.
He controls your path.
It is closed.

See, it's these kind of tactics I notice in you Tye that really bothers me. Everything you just said is true until you threw in "He controls your path" which you know full well you are using ambiguously since you've been given more than enough examples of what I feel it means for God to have control. You're being unfair to your argument. You're doing the same thing again here:


You two have shown me, very clearly, that the future is closed.
Controlled/Directed by God, for those who are saved.
Directed? Yes Controlled? Not in the way you are implying.



If God directs that path of a saved man but his future is still open, that would mean that God is directing it only off and on.
Which, according to what you and Knight have shown me, would mean that you are seeking Him, then not, then seeking him, then not.
Where do you get stuff like this? Seeking him then not? You either seek Him and He guides you, or you don't. What's with the back and forth stuff? Some have fallen away, but most don't. And unfortunately, a lot of the time, those that do, don't come back.

Kinda like Zakath.
He claims to have been a Christian, and now he's not.

What do you think?
I think He claimed to be a Christian just as he said and I'm sure He was sincere about it. Are you suggesting that since there was a time in His life that He made a choice to follow God that He is now bound by that? What do you think is going to happen on judgment day?
God: "Sorry, Zak, I know you don't believe in me but since at one time you did you gotta go to heaven."
Zak: "But I don't wanna!"
God doesn't force people to love Him because that ultimately isn't love at all.

jobeth
January 15th, 2004, 09:42 PM
Tye:

Good, you're getting closer.
You've come to the point where you see that man has free will to choose God or deny Him.
Once we've chosen Him, our future is closed.
We become stewards of the Will of God.
He directs our paths.

You're getting closer.
Yes God directs our path. But does God direct the paths of us only, and not the paths of the whole world?

Genesis 20:6 (KJV)
And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

How do we know that whenever a wicked person refrains from performing the evil lust in his heart, that it was not just God withholding them from sinning?


Doesn't the bible say that God is currently restraining the wicked?

2 Thes. 2:7 (ESV)
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.

Tye Porter
January 16th, 2004, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by Poly

Tye, don't patronize me.
See, it's these kind of tactics I notice in you Tye that really bothers me. Everything you just said is true until you threw in "He controls your path" which you know full well you are using ambiguously since you've been given more than enough examples of what I feel it means for God to have control. You're being unfair to your argument.

You and Knight are both doing this.

I don't know who, nor do I care to know who Calvin is, unless he comes with a hobbes.

I do know that the verses Knight used support what y'all call "closed theism".

If you two want to cop attitudes and get all "Beobebobish" on me, that's kewl.

I won't have anything more to do with it.

You two cannot be shown you're wrong without getting offended.

Your opinions are not salvation issues so it is not worth the sour attitudes from the two of you to dicuss this further.

Cheers.

Sealeaf
January 16th, 2004, 04:00 AM
Don't you know that everyone who will get into heaven will have first surrendered their will to God? And if you surrendered you will to God, then how can you claim to still have a will of your own?
You can't surrender what you don't actually have. This quote is a clear affirmation of free will. No one can give up what he does not have. If I can surrender my will to God then I have a free will. If I have no free will then I can't make choices.

Calvinism does not just limit God, it enslaves Him. Calvinism's God has no more free will than any mortal. He is locked into doing every thing He can do. Calvin makes no allowence for God chosing to not act on something that he is aware of. If God could chose not to control anything, then the whole edifice of determinism falls on its face. If any one thing can possibly be free then everything might be free. If God can chose to not control a murderer when he is sinning, then how can we be sure He is controling a saint when he is sainting?

Determinism also destroys the goodness of God. If in some way God remains free while everything else is bound to His will, then He is clearly responsible for every evil in the world. Hitler killed no Jews, God did it. Hitler did not even think up the idea on his own. God conceived it, God executed it, God is responsible for it.
God is directly, personely resposible for every rape, murder and torture ever committed against any human victim.

godrulz
January 16th, 2004, 11:20 AM
Thank you Poly, Knight, and Sealeaf for your clarity. Your thoughts are cogent and defensible.

Predeterminism (Christian fatalism?) takes the responsibility for good and evil from God's free moral agents and puts it back on God (contrary to His nature, character, and Moral Law).

How do the rest of you function in real life? Do you really believe God is controlling every key stroke as you type, that He dictates where and when you drive, that He causes people (Christian or non-Christian) to look at porn and masturbate (sorry for trying to make a point), etc.?

Every Christian is a practical 'open theist' living life like we genuinely have free will and are able to make choices with multiple alternatives or possibilities. To be an academic predeterminist may be an interesting exercise, but it distorts the revelation of God and His history in Scripture.

No wonder Zakath rejects this caricature of Christianity and God.

spadesalone
January 16th, 2004, 11:31 AM
FILTER YOUR LOGIC THROUGH SCRIPTURE AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND PLEASE.

godrulz
January 16th, 2004, 11:35 AM
Do not underestimate the danger of wearing glasses based on our pre-conceived theologies (a wrong assumption leads to a wrong conclusion...begging the question/circular reasoning...assuming the point one is trying to prove).

Scriptural revelation, not rationalism, is our authority (when properly translated and interpreted).

spadesalone
January 16th, 2004, 01:13 PM
bla bla bla

LightSon
January 16th, 2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by spadesalone

bla bla bla
[not-too-subtle irony]That's a bully of an argument spades.[/not-too-subtle irony]

But by dismissing godrulz with a "bla, bla, bla," aren't you a little concerned that he will feel like a dolt, for assuming he was engaging with an adult in a serious discussion? :(

I hope I don't make the mistake of discussing anything of a serious nature with you.

Knight
January 16th, 2004, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Poly
:confused: You'll have to show me where Knight said that a man's wicked heart gets his paths directed by God.
LOL... don't bother asking Tye for that question... he won't be able yo show you... but he wont let that stop him from misrepresenting my words.

Oh well. :(

Knight
January 16th, 2004, 04:16 PM
Tye states...

I do know that the verses Knight used support what y'all call "closed theism".

If you two want to cop attitudes and get all "Beobebobish" on me, that's kewl.

I won't have anything more to do with it.

You two cannot be shown you're wrong without getting offended.

Your opinions are not salvation issues so it is not worth the sour attitudes from the two of you to dicuss this further.

Cheers.Tye I keep wondering why you try to argue that I am stating something that I am not. :confused: Wouldn't it be more fun to discuss/argue/debate the things I ACTUALLY say?

Maybe your arguments against mine are valid... maybe my arguments against yours are valid. But how will we ever know until you actually address what I have been saying instead of some odd opposite misrepresentation of what I am saying?

And then you wonder why I get offended. :rolleyes:

Knight
January 16th, 2004, 04:33 PM
Let me re-post it.


Originally posted by smaller

Colossians 1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Are there EXCEPTIONS to ALL THINGS?

God might actually KNOW what He is doing eh? Of course there are exceptions!!!

Maybe Smaller can answer for us these simple questions....

At creation.....

Did God create love?
Did God create righteousness?
Did God create Himself?

Turbo
January 16th, 2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Tye Porter

You and Knight are both doing this.

I don't know who, nor do I care to know who Calvin is, unless he comes with a hobbes.

Originally written by Bill Watterson

Calvin is named for a sixteenth-century theologian who believed in predestination.
...
Named after a seventeenth-century philosopher with a dim view of human nature, Hobbes has the patient dignity and common sense of most animals I've met.

The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book; pp 22, 23.Remember when Calvin was struggling to resist throwing a slushball at Suzie, because it was almost Christmas and Santa was watching him? But he talked himself into it by reasoning that he was predestined to do it.

I'm sure I remember reading a strip like that (long before I became a Christian or learned about John Calvin). Tonight I've been trying to find it in my C&H books, but I haven't found it yet.

Tye Porter
January 16th, 2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Turbo
Remember when Calvin was struggling to resist throwing a slushball at Suzie, because it was almost Christmas and Santa was watching him? But he talked himself into it by reasoning that he was predestined to do it.

I'm sure I remember reading a strip like that (long before I became a Christian or learned about John Calvin). Tonight I've been trying to find it in my C&H books, but I haven't found it yet.

This is the only type of "Calvinism" predestination behind which I can get.
:thumb: :chuckle:

Tye Porter
January 16th, 2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Knight


You and I look at the same Bible verses and you interpret differently than I read it.

I won't argue with you about it.
It is not a salvation issue.
You are Saved whether you believed God called you to Him ("predestined") or it was just some coincidental luck that you fell upon Him.
Either way, I will not continue with you and Poly.
You are too pugnacious.

Knight
January 17th, 2004, 06:38 PM
Oh smaller.... hello....

Let me re-post it.... AGAIN.


Originally posted by smaller

Colossians 1
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Are there EXCEPTIONS to ALL THINGS?

God might actually KNOW what He is doing eh? Of course there are exceptions!!!

Maybe Smaller can answer for us these simple questions....

At creation.....

Did God create love?
Did God create righteousness?
Did God create Himself?

Knight
January 18th, 2004, 06:10 PM
Cricket..... [chirp] [chirp].....

1Way
January 18th, 2004, 07:38 PM
Jobeth - My friend and foe, welcome back to TOL, I hope you are doing well. How are you doing physically?

But, you said.
I believe that God is powerful enough to give man a freewill. But He's not that stupid. But free will is a good thing, right, God has a free will, doesn't He?

Then you quoted Poly saying

Could God not create life on this Earth without predestinating every event?
and then you said

(1) Yes, He could. (2) And that is just the kind of world that will exist for those who are separated from God's control. Which would seem to be good for them, since that's what they wanted. (3) But our Lord warned us that they won't actually be happy being separated from God's control. What a dilemma. On the one hand they want to be in Heaven rather than hell, but on the other hand (4) they don't want to give up their free will to live in a world where only God's will is done.

(5) Don't you know that everyone who will get into heaven will have first surrendered their will to God? (6) And if you surrendered you will to God, then how can you claim to still have a will of your own?
(1) - Good for you, you realize that God is powerful enough to be the God of the bible.

(2) - But, I thought you believe that everyone is controlled by God's will. So if you right that everyone and everything is controlled by God's will, then you are wrong to say there will be a world for those outside of God's control. Or said the other way, if your right that there will be a world where God is not in control of people in hell, then you are wrong that everyone and everything is controlled by God.

Which is it Jobeth, God is in control of everything, or not?

(3) - Oh, so some will not be under God's control, but I thought you believe that everything is under God's control. Please make up your mind.

(4) - They don't want to give up their whatttttttt!!!!!!????? You say that they have NOOOOOOOOOO free will, only God has free will, not man. What are you saying? Man does or does not have free will? Make up your mind.

(5) - What????? :freak: I thought that God controlled everything? It's not up to us to surrender anything, we can do nothing, only God does everything. Please make up your mind, do we control some things, or does God control everything? Which is it?

(6) - By letting the truth guide your faith. God says that after we become saved, we are a new creation, His spirit starts living within us working sanctifcation in our life, such that He is constantly working to conform us into Christlikeness. Even the words, surrendering your will to God, establish that it is still your will, and once God has started His good work within us, there is no mention in scripture that this means we have no will of our own anymore, it's that our will is ever being conformed to His. But, again, according to your view, such a thing as submitting our will to God is impossible, there is only one will that exists, and that is God's will and control. So if God wills that someone becomes saved, it is not because that person did anything at all, let alone submit their will to God, you are suggesting that it was God and His doing every step of the way, so you have no business teaching that some people do anything, least of all submit their own will to God.

Back in rare form and as contradictory and self refuting as normal, good to have you back Jobeth, you make God's classical omniscience look as bad as ever!

Here, let me ask you a question. Can God control everything and also at the same time and in the same relationship not control some things? Yes or no?

And as a standard test question for general logic, can yes mean no,
does truth mean false,
does good mean evil,
does right mean wrong,
or are all of these (baically) opposites and do not mean what the other means?

Good luck! :thumb:

Knight
January 18th, 2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
Back in rare form and as contradictory and self refuting as normal, good to have you back Jobeth, you make God's classical omniscience look as bad as ever!

Here, let me ask you a question. Can God control everything and also at the same time and in the same relationship not control some things? Yes or no?
:thumb:

Rolf Ernst
January 18th, 2004, 08:16 PM
Knight--God can and does do whatsoever He pleases. If He does not please in regard to anything, it is ABSURD to ask, "can God do this?"
His will is done and nothing else can or will be done. And He does not entertain absurdities. "Who is he who says and it comes to pass when the Lord has not commanded it?" Rather than rail against it, just try to understand it. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so his ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. Reject it and wallow in futility, but you can't defeat it.

godrulz
January 18th, 2004, 09:00 PM
Quick question:

I assume most Open Theists lean to libertarian freedom of the will (at least significant, genuine moral freedom).

Calvinism seems to overemphasize the will of God at the expense of other free will moral agents.

How does Enyart and others here conclude that salvation is unconditional (OSAS)? This seems to be a logical conclusion of Calvinism (unconditional eternal security; perseverance of the saints; irrisistable grace; unconditional election). Arminianism (and Open Theism) generally supports conditional eternal security (possibility of becoming apostate).

This is debated elsewhere (Jerry Shurgart= baptismal regeneration thread). Without getting into the debate, what is the short response to OSAS held by those who uphold free will (I guess I have not go to that chapter in "The Plot". A response would benefit those who do not own the book)?

Knight
January 18th, 2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Knight--God can and does do whatsoever He pleases. If He does not please in regard to anything, it is ABSURD to ask, "can God do this?"
His will is done and nothing else can or will be done. And He does not entertain absurdities. "Who is he who says and it comes to pass when the Lord has not commanded it?" Rather than rail against it, just try to understand it. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so his ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. Reject it and wallow in futility, but you can't defeat it. Sorry but I really cannot make heads nor tails as to what point you are attempting to make.

Knight
January 18th, 2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by godrulz
How does Enyart and others here conclude that salvation is unconditional (OSAS)? This seems to be a logical conclusion of Calvinism (unconditional eternal security; perseverance of the saints; irrisistable grace; unconditional election). Arminianism (and Open Theism) generally supports conditional eternal security (possibility of becoming apostate).
It's a myth that eternal security is a open view vs. closed view issue.

If God tells those in the Body that they are secure... who can say otherwise?

Romans 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

godrulz
January 18th, 2004, 10:19 PM
Nothing external can separate us from the love of God. Sin and rebellion can and does separate us from a holy God. If we have free will that does not have a causative force (God) behind it, WE can sever the relationship. Love, by definition, involves the equal possibility of choosing another's highest good or choosing selfishness as the supreme choice.

Either salvation is a reconciled love relationship that must be freely entered into and maintained (morals), or it is an irrevocable metaphysical change ('born again' irrevocably, rather than as a metaphor).

1Way
January 19th, 2004, 03:06 AM
godrulz - I believe that it's the mechanism that you are confused about. In Calvinism, the unconditionality of (OSAS) is because of God's sovereign will/choice/foreknowledge, take your pick, God fore something individuals to salvation. Since's God's fore whatever is never wrong, those who are saved are saved without a doubt. But that is nothing like Enyart's views as taught from scripture. We in the body of Christ are secure in Him. So, if you expect to see Jesus in heaven, and you are in Christ, then you will be in Heaven too. That is not unconditionality, that is based upon the condition that we are in Him. If we meet that condition, then we are going to be in heaven as assuredly as Jesus is and will be. The conditional salvation teachings are for the circumcision believers such that you could loose your salvation, thus we have teachings like being blotted out of the book of life, and forgive others if you want God to forgive you, etc.

Don't forget that only we are sealed for the day of redemption, and even if we are faithless, He remains faithful, He will not reject HIMSELF. See, God considers us in Him so much, that even if we become without faith, God will not reject --) Jesus. (-- !!! God considers us that secure in Him. !!! These BIBLICAL teachings are brought to you by Paul who gave them to us, naturally they are NOT from any of the circumcion, their teaching is for another dispensation.

You see, it is really your understanding of so much manmade trumplery that confuses you and makes it hard for you to fit all the pieces together. Learn to grasp ahold of God's word and hold loosely, VERY loosely your own manmade understandings.

Your trying to run before your walking. Get the bible overview in first, then these sorts of details will fit naturally and effortlessly into place.

You said
1 - Nothing external can separate us from the love of God. 2 - Sin and rebellion can and does separate us from a holy God. 3 - If we have free will that does not have a causative force (God) behind it, WE can sever the relationship. 1 - No, Knight was quoting scripture which carries with it a beautifully developed context, it was talking about us who have "victory in Christ". For those "in Christ", we are secure "in" Him. God's word does not say that "something" can separate us from God (meaning loose our salvation) once we are saved, it says the exact opposite.
2 - Yes, it does, but not as though we could loose our salvation. We who are "in Christ", are secure "in Him". We can loose eternal rewards, but not our salvation.

3 - Please stay on planet reality, we want to understand God's word to direct man's thinking, not the other way around.

God is Lord over salvation, not the open view, nor libertarian realchoice freedom conbablistic liberty openmulinism freewill theism, so if God says that those "in Christ" are secure "in Him", then, we are. It's a God thing, go figure.

You said
Either salvation is a reconciled love relationship that must be freely entered into and maintained (morals), or it is an irrevocable metaphysical change ('born again' irrevocably, rather than as a metaphor). :doh: No wonder you have such a hard time understanding God's word, it's true and very different from manmade thought. If you get any less biblical, I'm afraid that we will have to sentence you to a life of bible reading with no philosophical stuff for you.

... I'll give you an irrevocable metaphysical change :eek:

godrulz
January 19th, 2004, 11:57 AM
As I have told Jerry Shugart over and over, IF we are in Christ, we are secure and have eternal life (I think we agree).

The question is: is it possible to be in Christ for years, and later become apostate and reject the truth (like Judas and Charles Templeton)? There can be some mistaken identity (never was a Christian), but this is not true of all former believers....hence, our understanding needs to change.

Robert Shank (Southern Baptist) has refuted the 'perseverance of the saints' in his 1960 book "Life in the Son" (Westcott). He looks at shared texts and proof texts from each view, and puts them in their context.

Arminians use foreknowledge as the mechanism to explain how God knows who will be saved, without negating free will.

Calvinists use predestination (TULIP) and the will of God to support unconditional eternal security (you are in this camp, despite the diversion to try to say salvation is conditional on being in Christ- exactly what a Calvinist would say).

If I could be so bold (in my vast ignorance and humility), I think you and Enyart error by making too much of dispensationalism and judging what is about the circumcision vs uncircumcision (eisogetical, subjective pre-conceived theological 'glasses').

Open Theism is not logically or theologically compatible with exhaustive foreknowledge or OSAS for believers (conditional eternal security= if you abide in Christ and persevere to the end, you will be saved; if you turn into a reprobate, God-hater, you will not be saved).

Please DO NOT take me out of your will or good books (as if I was ever there)!



:shocked: :help:

1Way
January 19th, 2004, 08:55 PM
Oh ye of little retention span - I'd much rather have my understanding of being secure in Christ than yours which is really not being secure in Christ.
Don't forget that only we are sealed for the day of redemption, and even if we are faithless, He remains faithful, He will not reject HIMSELF. See, God considers us in Him so much, that even if we become without faith, God will not reject --) Jesus. (-- !!! God considers us that secure in Him. !!! These BIBLICAL teachings are brought to you by Paul who gave them to us, naturally they are NOT from any of the circumcion, their teaching is for another dispensation. God teaches that even if we become faithless, that is without faith in God, He remains faithful, He can not reject HIMSELF.



Honestly, I think you like to regurgitate much more than you do digest.


I think you'd make a good truck driver since most of the time is spent traveling and only some of the time is spent after you have arrived. The trip is a struggle but the arival is easy. You like the journey and not the destination, you like the work in progress not the finished results, you like to struggle against instead of resting in (the truth?). Ok, that last bit was a bit harsh, but really, your version of security is not consistent, and your idea of faith is about as manmade as could be. Don't you like God's word?

Maybe you think that God's seal for the day of redemption is not a very secure thought, like what? Maybe God sometimes forgets to seal some? Or some of His seals are a bit outdated and their staying power just might give way under the awesome power of man's might? Or ???

Don't you trust God when He said that He will NOT reject Himself? I mean what in the world are you biblically talking about???

godrulz
January 19th, 2004, 10:58 PM
Well, that is breaking some sort of rule of logic and sound thinking.

I am surprised that an Open Theist cannot see the contradictory Calvinistic assumptions and conclusions that have crept in on this one area of truth. There is a more Arminian/Open Theist way to understand those proof-texts.

Perhaps we should recognize our limitations as truck drivers and paramedics, and not pretend to be amateur theologians (I think you are wrong on this point of OSAS).

1Way
January 20th, 2004, 08:44 PM
godrulz - You said
Well, that is breaking some sort of rule of logic and sound thinking.

I am surprised that an Open Theist cannot see the contradictory Calvinistic assumptions and conclusions that have crept in on this one area of truth. There is a more Arminian/Open Theist way to understand those proof-texts. First sentence is you basically saying that you disagree with me, as I would say that you can honestly show nothing of what I have said to be as you characterized it.

As to the second bit, name one single Calvinistic or contradictory assumption that has crept in? And don't beg the question with conclusions, I agree with the Calvinists on OSAS but only for this dispensation and in a completely different way than they do. OSAS is NOT a Calvinistic teaching, security of the saints is Pauline through and thru. Just as I suggest I have already exposed you for being a bit off base concerning miracles, you agreed with Freak about them against Enyart's teaching, and I admit I am assuming that your lack of arguments against my defense of Enyart's teachings implied a general consent to the same, in perhaps a similar way, you are honestly speaking your mind about what you believe here and now, yet your thoughts so far do not demonstrate a good working knowledge of open theism and dispensationalism as they relate to Calvinism on this issue. You could not be more wrong, and I dare say, it is your almost constant focus and familiarity with the manmade mainstream stuff like Calvinism and such that is blinding you, even here and now, I presented God's word for my understanding of OSAS, and although it was just a brief snapshot, yet you offer NO biblical grounds for attacking my view, instead you turn to your old favorite, manmade philosophy and understanding as though such things are the source of determining eternal truth. :doh:

Please answer fully
Please re-examine what I gave you as being the grounds for my view, hint, they are all from the bible. From there, you need to expose how my understanding of those teachings/arguments is wrong. Hint, do so from scripture. Lastly, to see if you even understand my understanding of that one passage where God replaced Himself for us, do you understand my understanding of that passage? Namely, answer the following.

Do you expect Jesus Christ to be accepted by God and thus be in heaven?

Do you have the same confidence that those in Christ will be there too, no matter their lack of faith in God?

I understand the answer to those questions as being a joyous yes. If you don't, then you don't understand square one, and if you do understand, then you should have no problem with this sort of security, it is very clear and very clear, and for that matter, quite clear.

How about the HS sealing us for the day of redemption, that teaching can not fit into your anti-OSAS ideas, right? Does the HS sometimes forget to seal a believer? These are serious questions that you are not dealing with. Does the HS always remember to seal but sometimes God's seal for the day of redemption is not a fresh seal, it's stale and brakes down so that the believer may slip away sometime prior to the day of redemption. ???


"irrevocable metaphysical change" :eek:

1Way
January 20th, 2004, 08:56 PM
I am greatful, and thank God for our time together,,, may our lives be guided by God's ways, honoring Him and His word in the process.

1Way
January 20th, 2004, 09:53 PM
I loved Poly's first post of this thread! That is some serious food for thought, and blessed my soul greatly. Underlines are mine for added emphasis, plus added a line space for more white space distribution between para's. ;)

:first:


I touched on this on another thread but I want to get other views on this. Does Calvinism limit God? Those that believe God predestined everything must admit one of 2 things. Either God was not powerful enough to give man a true freewill or He was powerful enough but instead chose to pre-program everybody's will.

Could God not create life on this Earth without predestinating every event? If your answer is no then you limit God. If your answer is yes then you have to either deny predestination or believe He chose this way though He didn't have to. So why would a loving God choose to pre-arrange a woman being raped, a person being murdered, etc.? If you say it is to bring about His glory, is He not powerful enough to bring it about without this having to happen? I say He is. I say that since He truly is the living and loving God, if there be any other way to bring about His glory without having to do that which is against His nature then of course He would go this route. I believe He is so powerful, infact, that His glory will be established despite the evil of man. He's so powerful, He could give man his very own freewill yet man's own wickedness will never take away from God's power, glory and sovereignty. Amen Poly, and the goodness and righteousness of God conforms to your understanding without a doubt, that was excellent. And to the natural objection from the other side, that His ways are higher than our ways, I love the biblical retort, ya, but God's ways are not lower than our ways! :eek: It's wrong to do or support or not oppose evil, so God having a permissive will over all evil (sinful immoral wicked etc., not righteous punishment/destruction) that ever happened is an evil and ungodly teaching. God's righteous eternal standard of right and wrong are not arbitrary nor represent a dual standard, we are to be like Jesus, and His ideas of right and wrong are to be our ideas too. Amazing and unplumbed are the depths of God's ways/understanding, but we have a huge clue in as brilliantly produced by God in His word to us, the bible.

Its so good (and fun) to rub shoulders with Christians who not only think for themselves, they do so with such devotion and care to God and His word.

:thumb: :o

1Way
January 20th, 2004, 09:55 PM
This totaly cracked me up, a most excellent post! From Knight this thread post 16 responding to Jobeth.

:first:


Jobeth said
Freewill is a human myth based on a Satanic lie. Knight said
ROTFL..... :D
JoBeth.... don't you realize what you are saying?

You claim God controls every aspect of every created being.

Therefore IF freewill is a Satanic lie THEN freewill is a Satanic lie created and directed by God! Right you are Knight, and if God established such a thing, it must be a good thing, so why is Jobeth attacking what God has done, why not say that murder and rape and suicide and abortion are all as much a part of God's will as prayer and loving kindness and grace and justice. She should never attribute such godly things to Satan or any other objectionable thing, she should just say that everything including all vial wicked evil is simply more evidence of God at work! :mad: ugh, What a complete contradiction to godliness and eternal truth. Jobeth is a living contradiction, by her personal and moral actions, she is like any other Christian, I personally met her while passing thru her local, she is a very friendly and likeable person, but when she gets to explaining her faith, it's about as rotten and contradictory as it gets. I care for her, but my caring is not hypocritical to that which is evil, thus she is my friend and foe, I oppose her because of a (genuine) good godly care for God and His ways, which by the way, for Jobeth's account, are not evil and sinful.

:thumb: :o

Knight
January 21st, 2004, 01:41 PM
Man... if anyone ever wants to silence "smaller" simply ask him these questions....

At creation.....

Did God create love?
Did God create righteousness?
Did God create Himself?

godrulz
January 22nd, 2004, 01:13 AM
Do I understand correctly that a believer with free will can decide to hate God and be in the same state as a reprobate unbeliever and still be saved because he was sealed at some point in his life?

This is the antithesis of Pauline thought and shows a gross lack of understanding of the nature of salvation as a love relationship that must be freely entered into and maintained (universal truth for all dispensations).

Rolf Ernst
January 22nd, 2004, 03:27 PM
Man's power to WILL does not translate necessarily into the power to DO. Man may WILL something altogether different from the purpose God has in the actions they will take as they attempt to work their will. In every instance, it will be God's purpose that is fulfilled. It very often happens that the actions of men produce results of which they had no intention; maybe not even expected.
An example is the American space program. Men have been trying to find the key to origins in the heavens--unsuccessfully; but many advancements of science have resulted from the space program which men did not anticipate.

Mr Potato Head
January 22nd, 2004, 06:37 PM
"Do not merely listen to the words and so deceive yourselves, DO what it says"... seems to me like man can do. Oh, maybe you mean that God determines all our steps, good or bad. In fact, today's the anniversery of Roe v. Wade, which is, ironically enough, one of God's most influential works in this country in the last half century. I mean, all because of him (not man, man cannot do, obviously) millions of babies have been killed in the last 31 years. I mean, that's impressive. Think of all the contributions God could have made them give to social security! But no, he saw it fit to slaughter millions. But everything that happens is for good. Even when my friends went to protest God's actions today, they were all working together with the liberals/infanticists for the greater glory of the Almighty. Praise Jesus!

Rolf Ernst
January 22nd, 2004, 07:02 PM
Mr. Potato Head--Trying to blame God for the evil men do? One of God's most common judgements against those who turn against Him is to give them up to the evil of their own nature. Did you hear that?
The evil of their "own" nature.
In common grace, He often restrains that evil nature; but when His longsuffering passes, He releases that restraint and they plummet into evil as a consequence of their "own" nature. As a result, their "own" nature ALSO brings judgement upon them; and the evil they do is often a form of judgement upon their victims. If a death results, that is no basis upon which to cast accusations against God because all men are condemned to death as a consequence of sin. Death is death no matter what the means, and God has the right to take transgressors off the earth by any means He pleases at whatever stage of their life He pleases. Even when His purpose in someome's death is fulfilled by an evil person, He still reserves the
right to execute judgement against the guilty person who took the life out of evil intent and evil purpose.

jobeth
January 22nd, 2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Sealeaf

You can't surrender what you don't actually have.
You are correct. And I apologize. The confusion is entirely my fault because I wasn't as precise as I ought to have been.

I said those who get to heaven will have first "surrendered their will to God" when I should have said they have "surrendered the notion that they have a freewill".

Thank you for pointing that out.

jobeth
January 22nd, 2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Jobeth - My friend and foe, welcome back to TOL, I hope you are doing well. How are you doing physically?
I'm doing well now. Thank you for inquiring about me. Did I tell you that it turned out I had a tumor in my small intestine? I had surgery a year ago to remove it. Even the surgeon was surprised.
How's your stomach problems going?

But free will is a good thing, right, God has a free will, doesn't He?
Nothing is impossible for God. We say that God necessarily exists because there is no world (possible or impossible) where God is "excluded". In the set of "all worlds", there are only some of them that are "possible" to exist.
For instance, the "non-existent" world - represented like the "empty set" { } - is not possible to exist. "Not existing" is ontologically true for the "non-existent" world, { }. And yet, God "exists" as Truth, even for the empty set, because it is "true" that in the "non-existeny" world, nothing exists.

This is why I am working on a book to explain all this. (Remember I drew you a picture showing the 4 kinds of worldviews, two of which are a circle within a circle?) People are so confused about about "possible worlds" and "singularities" and "worldviews" and such. But they haven't really considered what they are saying. They just "imagine" that they "know" what they are talking about. I hope my book will help them, especially since I will include lots of pictures for the concepts that are hard to follow.


Good for you, you realize that God is powerful enough to be the God of the bible.
Yes, Dwayne. You are not more powerful than God. And I wish you would quit insinuating that you could whip His butt if you wanted to. Because you cannot. Even Satan, who is also more powerful than you, doesn't make such a ridiculous claim.


But, I thought you believe that everyone is controlled by God's will. So if you right that everyone and everything is controlled by God's will, then you are wrong to say there will be a world for those outside of God's control. Or said the other way, if your right that there will be a world where God is not in control of people in hell, then you are wrong that everyone and everything is controlled by God.
I am speaking of two different "worlds". One world is this one where God controls everything. The other is the "World to Come", which does not yet exist and is actually two separated worlds. In the World to Come, God will have One World (aka the new heaven and new earth) where God is "with" His people, and the other world (aka Outer darkness) where hell, death, and the grave are cast far, far "away" from God's care and control.


Which is it Jobeth, God is in control of everything, or not?God DOES control everything. But in the World to Come, He will lord over only those who are "with" him. (i.e. the God-possessed) The others are cast away and He remembers them no more.


Oh, so some will not be under God's control, but I thought you believe that everything is under God's control. Please make up your mind.
Yes, God controls everything. He is Lord over ALL, whether they acknowledge Him or not. Even those who are "cast into outer darkness" do not go there of their own free will. Rather they are cast there against their will and without their consent.


They don't want to give up their whatttttttt!!!!!!????? You say that they have NOOOOOOOOOO free will, only God has free will, not man. What are you saying? Man does or does not have free will? Make up your mind.
I have made up my mind that God controls everything. You must reason for yourself whether God is Lord or not.
If God is Lord, then you serve Him alone, (contrary to what you were taught) For how can you disobey an omnicausal God?

Actually, all things serve Him. The world was made by Him AND for Him. Oh, and you thought He made the world to serve us and our purposes and schedules? God made all things for Himself. (Prov 16:4)

I thought that God controlled everything? It's not up to us to surrender anything, we can do nothing, only God does everything. Please make up your mind, do we control some things, or does God control everything? Which is it?
God controls everything whether you believe it or not. It is only reasonable that if God controls everything, you cannot logically cling to the notion of free will. So if you claim to have a freewill, then you simply don't know God.

1 John 2:4 (KJV)
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.


By letting the truth guide your faith. God says that after we become saved, we are a new creation, His spirit starts living within us working sanctifcation in our life, such that He is constantly working to conform us into Christlikeness.
And what did Christ say?
John 5:19 (ESV)
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

So if Christ says "I do nothing of my own will and agency", then can't we say the same?

Even the words, surrendering your will to God, establish that it is still your will, and once God has started His good work within us, there is no mention in scripture that this means we have no will of our own anymore, it's that our will is ever being conformed to His.
1 John 2:5 (ESV)
but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:

But, again, according to your view, such a thing as submitting our will to God is impossible, there is only one will that exists, and that is God's will and control. So if God wills that someone becomes saved, it is not because that person did anything at all, let alone submit their will to God, you are suggesting that it was God and His doing every step of the way, so you have no business teaching that some people do anything, least of all submit their own will to God.
Surrendering your will is not a work we do of our own agency. Rather, it is more like the first breathe a baby takes when entering the world. It is done "automatically" at birth.

First God reveals himself as He truly is - the Omnicausal One God. Immediately, we perceive the truth and our notions of freewill desert us. I use the term "surrender" because that is how I was taught. It's the surrender of ectasy. We surrender TO overwhelming love.


Back in rare form and as contradictory and self refuting as normal, good to have you back Jobeth, you make God's classical omniscience look as bad as ever!

Here, let me ask you a question. Can God control everything and also at the same time and in the same relationship not control some things? Yes or no?
Of course not. If God is actually LORD OF ALL, like He claims, then you cannot at the same time be LORD OF YOURSELF, unless you are DELUDED.
2 Thes. 2:11 (KJV)
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

jobeth
January 22nd, 2004, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst
In every instance, it will be God's purpose that is fulfilled. It very often happens that the actions of men produce results of which they had no intention; maybe not even expected. I agree!

What they call "evil", God meant for good.

There is no such thing as "unnecessary evil".

Mr Potato Head
January 22nd, 2004, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst Mr. Potato Head--Trying to blame God for the evil men do? One of God's most common judgements against those who turn against Him is to give them up to the evil of their own nature. Did you hear that?
The evil of their "own" nature.
In common grace, He often restrains that evil nature; but when His longsuffering passes, He releases that restraint and they plummet into evil as a consequence of their "own" nature. As a result, their "own" nature ALSO brings judgement upon them; and the evil they do is often a form of judgement upon their victims. If a death results, that is no basis upon which to cast accusations against God because all men are condemned to death as a consequence of sin.

:thumb: Agreed!



Death is death no matter what the means, and God has the right to take transgressors off the earth by any means He pleases at whatever stage of their life He pleases. Even when His purpose in someome's death is fulfilled by an evil person, He still reserves the
right to execute judgement against the guilty person who took the life out of evil intent and evil purpose.

God certainly has the right to destroy little babies. He did create them. I'm not doubting that. But can you see Jesus saying "let the little children come to me and while here take some to my left to the abortionist and others to the right to the child molester"?

It is not at all consistent with God's character, I'm not talking about what he can and cannot do.

1Way
January 23rd, 2004, 09:10 AM
Jobeth - You said
I'm doing well now. Thank you for inquiring about me. Did I tell you that it turned out I had a tumor in my small intestine? I had surgery a year ago to remove it. Even the surgeon was surprised.
How's your stomach problems going? No, at least I don't think so, wow, that is great news! Any problems since? My stomach issues are not much better, but I'm about to make a lifestyle change such that hopefully the stress in my life will start to lower somewhat. Actually, I just had one of the most stressful things happen to me in years and years, ,,, I wrecked my truck I was driving for the company! I'm alright except for a highly damage ego and fractured self esteem, but I'm trying to look at it as positively as possible, although the level of humility and humiliation I am going through is exceeding, sometimes a dose of humility is a very good thing, even if it's forced upon you. I just wasn't being as careful as I should have been, and I wrecked the entire truck and trailer, it was a mess. I still have my job, and my back (and entire body) is sore after participating in the clean up effort which entailed a day and a half in fridged freezing weather with wind chills and an already agravated sore back which occasionally bothers me. And to top it all off, this is my last week working for them full time, I am going part time so that I would have more time to take care of home issues, which represent a huge backlog. ,,, but, thanks for asking. :o

Don't have time for more right now, just had to say that it's good to hear that evidently you are doing better! Another thing to be thankful to God about. Catch you later.

1Way
January 23rd, 2004, 10:00 AM
Opps, sorry Jobeth, I do remember you saying something about it might be cancer... That was the last I remember, so how have you been since? Any signs of re-occuring cancer or other health problems?

BTW, Jobeth, the problem is not about imaginary and unbiblical "necessary" vrs "unnecessary" evil/sin, the problem is that evil is never good and godly. NEVER! Remember, sin (evil/unrighteousness/ungodliness) is that which goes against God and His righteousness? That being the case, all sin and evil refutes the notion that God is the only free will, because all sin and evil and unrighteousness and ungodliness comes from somewhere else other than our God.

Woe to (folks like) you who switch good and evil, light and dark, sweet for bitter, thus "where is the God of Justice".



Jobeth, do you believe in absolute right and wrong?

Is God's justice arbitrary or absolute?

Is God the father of all evil?

Are you remotely awake yet? :eek:

Rolf Ernst
January 23rd, 2004, 12:52 PM
POTATO HEAD--Your post #71 shows that you stubbornly cling to the blasphemous idea that God's motivation in evils MUST BE AS WICKED AS THOSE WHO EXECUTE THOSE DEEDS.
According to you, God's motivation could not have been from a holy and just purpose when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery as Joseph himself said years later--"You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." You want Him to be as blameworthy as Joseph's brothers. According to YOU, He could NOT have meant it for good.
According to YOU, when a baby dies in an abortion mill God can't clear Himself of guilt on the justice of His sentence of death pronounced against sin. You defy God's RIGHT to take action on the basis of His justice because you prefer to charge HIM with the wickedness of the human (??) who took that life not as a just penalty against sin, but out of self-interest and irresponsibility.
According to YOU, when a nation tramples under foot the Son of God, considers His blood to be unholy, and does despite to the Spirit of grace God has no right to execute judgement against them by giving them over to the evil that is in their OWN nature.
NEWS FOR YOU MR. POTATO HEAD--God, in wrath against an evil people who have scoffed against Him, has the RIGHT to take vengeance and execute judgement by removing from them the help of His common grace which earlier restrained the EVIL of their own nature. And when they do the evils which He had earlier protected them from, MR POTATO HEAD, it is by His JUSTICE that the EVIL of their OWN nature then becomes the instrument of His holy wrath AGAINST them--just as He is now executing judgement against wicked people in this country by giving them up to the EVIL of SLAYING THEIR OWN CHILDREN.
But it is not likely that YOU WANT DELIVERANCE FROM THAT PARTICULAR FORM OF EVIL.
Psalm 81:11,12 "But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would have none of me, so I GAVE THEM UP TO THEIR OWN HEART'S LUST AND THEY WALKED IN THEIR OWN COUNSELS."
That is God's RIGHT, but have YOU cried out to Him to deliver YOU from the EVIL OF YOUR OWN WAY?
"The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword; piercing to the dividing asunder of joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intent of the heart."

Poly
January 23rd, 2004, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

POTATO HEAD--Your post #71 shows that you stubbornly cling to the blasphemous idea that God's motivation in evils MUST BE AS WICKED AS THOSE WHO EXECUTE THOSE DEEDS.
According to you, God's motivation could not have been from a holy and just purpose when Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery as Joseph himself said years later--"You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." You want Him to be as blameworthy as Joseph's brothers. According to YOU, He could NOT have meant it for good.

Why do you limit God? Why do you make Him out to be less powerful than He truly is? You, along with countless others think God pre-arranged for all of this to happen to Joseph. You think He wanted evil to take place before the good. Was He not powerful enough to have good come about without bringing about evil? The God of the bible that I see is one who can still cause Joseph's brother's to bow to him regardless of Joseph, by his complete freewill, opening his big mouth about it.
According to YOU, when a baby dies in an abortion mill God can't clear Himself of guilt on the justice of His sentence of death pronounced against sin. You defy God's RIGHT to take action on the basis of His justice because you prefer to charge HIM with the wickedness of the human (??) who took that life not as a just penalty against sin, but out of self-interest and irresponsibility.
This is sick and disgusting! It's bad enough to say that babies deserve to have their limbs torn apart, their brains sucked out of their heads and to be slaughtered like animals but to say that God is behind all of this, cheering the abortionists on, pleased all the way, "Yeah, cut up that child! This is exactly what I want!" is sick beyond words. I don't appreciate you attributing this to my God. If somebody said false things about my Earthly father, you better know I'm going out of my way to set the record straight. So when somebody wrongly accuses my heavenly father of this most vile and wicked evil of man, it infuriates me BIG TIME!!

1Way
January 23rd, 2004, 05:56 PM
Isa 5:20 - Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Am 5:15 - Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. It may be that the Lord God of hosts Will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.

Mal 2:17 - You have wearied the Lord with your words; Yet you say, "In what way have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil Is good in the sight of the Lord, And He delights in them," Or, "Where is the God of justice?"

Jobeth and Rolf Ernst don't even demonstrate a working knowledge of one of the most basic and immature teachings from the bible, that God is good and wants good things to happen, and evil and sin is bad and God always opposes such things. I think most learned that at or before elementary school, but those two must have had a drastic educational shift, from righteous to evil. I love :cloud9: righteousness :jump: and I hate evil :mad: , and although I am not nearly perfect at living that out :nono: , it is a tremendous joy to understand and experience non-hypocritical love which naturally abhors evil. Those two are plainly condemned by God's word for attributing evil to God, which is evil for good, and dishonoring God instead of honoring Him and His righteous character which abhors evil, not DOES evil.

Do you know what mm's are? Moral Morons. :eek: :dunce: duh, what is evil, what is good, God's will is for both, duh, right? duh, yep, God does evil and good both and His good nature somehow makes the evil that God does, into "good godly ungodliness" and of course there the ever popular "righteous unrighteousness" and the "down home down right divine evil, sin and iniquity", and last but not least, don't forget about dear old "godly wickedness" and "upright and morally good immorality". :radar: :kookoo:

Mr Potato Head
January 23rd, 2004, 07:42 PM
Rolf Ernst said:
According to YOU, when a nation tramples under foot the Son of God, considers His blood to be unholy, and does despite to the Spirit of grace God has no right to execute judgement against them by giving them over to the evil that is in their OWN nature.


And Mr Potato Head said before:
God certainly has the right to destroy little babies. He did create them. I'm not doubting that. But can you see Jesus saying "let the little children come to me and while here take some to my left to the abortionist and others to the right to the child molester"?


So whom do I believe about what Mr Potato Head believes?

And whom do I believe about what God wants?


Originally said by Jesus
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. (John 3:20)

God does not do evil, and bringing about evil would be doing evil. The Bible does not say God creates evil (except how some translations translate what he is referring to as his just judgment on sinners... see Isaiah 45:7). God is completely opposed to evil. God saw his creation and it was very good. Then evil came into it not from God and it fell. God hates evil. It grieves him. Claiming otherwise is to contradict the Living God.

jobeth
January 23rd, 2004, 08:32 PM
Mr Potato Head

Regarding your post #71 of this thread:

I don't know who you were quoting but it was not me.

Can you please edit your post to credit those quotes to the correct person?

Tye Porter
January 23rd, 2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Poly
Does Calvinism limit God?
No.
Open Theism does.
Putting man's will over God's limits God.

Rolf Ernst
January 23rd, 2004, 08:49 PM
You too, Poly? You ALSO charge God with evil because of the evil MEN do?? Can't see off the end of your nose far enough to realize that ""The wages of sin is death" and God has the RIGHT to require that price of anyone at any stage of their life even if it be by the hands of wicked HUMANS WHO ARE THE ONES WHO KILL NOT AS A FORM OF JUSTICE, BUT SIMPLY OUT OF SELF-INTEREST AND IRRESPONSIBILITY?
I guess you are one of the Godhaters who despises the FACT that our God is "a consuming fire."
Hear the Scripture, you wicked generation-- "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. I will repay."
I guess you must be horrified that He at one time wiped the earth clean of all humanity except for the eight in the ark. How many infants MR. POLY, do you think died at THAT TIME??????????GIVE ME AN ANSWER--HOW MANY????????????
You unbelieving Arminians have sat before sugar- tongued, ear-ticking preachers for so long that you can feel nothing at the thought of God's just wrath. You run around with syrupy sweet bumper stickers on the back of your car that say, SMIILLLEEE, God luvs YOU!
And you would say that without shame to those whom He hates---
OOOooohh! FORGIVE ME!!! I forgot that you people have torn Psalm 11:5 and 5:11 out of your sticky sweet Bibles.
The contempt that modern Americans have for God is largely due to the fact that you Arminians have for decades REFUSED to declare the whiole counsel of God to blasphemers who believe on the basis of YOUR testimony that God is without any measure of judgement against the wicked.
WAKE UP. IT IS CHRIST WHO WILL TREAD THE "WINEPRESS OF THE FIERCENESS AND WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD."
Won't those unbelievers who heard about God from YOUR lips be surprised!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jobeth
January 23rd, 2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Jobeth - No, at least I don't think so, wow, that is great news! [quote] Yes, very great news. God is soooo good.
[quote]Any problems since?
Yes, I still have a few problems, but not anything like they were before. I got much sicker after I last saw you. That tumor, they tell me, had grown completely through the wall of the bowel. No wonder I was so sick and in pain! They resected it. I'm just amazed they can do those things and have everything work good as new. We are truly fearfully and wonderfully made by God.

My stomach issues are not much better, but I'm about to make a lifestyle change such that hopefully the stress in my life will start to lower somewhat. Actually, I just had one of the most stressful things happen to me in years and years, ,,, I wrecked my truck I was driving for the company! I'm alright except for a highly damage ego and fractured self esteem, but I'm trying to look at it as positively as possible, although the level of humility and humiliation I am going through is exceeding, sometimes a dose of humility is a very good thing, even if it's forced upon you. I'm so sorry this happened. It sounds like it could have been much worse. Thank God for His grace. You could have been killed! But just as you said, God will surely bring good out of a seemingly awful occurrence.

I just wasn't being as careful as I should have been, and I wrecked the entire truck and trailer, it was a mess.
I can imagine it was a huge mess! What were you thinking?

I still have my job, and my back (and entire body) is sore after participating in the clean up effort which entailed a day and a half in fridged freezing weather with wind chills and an already agravated sore back which occasionally bothers me. And to top it all off, this is my last week working for them full time, I am going part time so that I would have more time to take care of home issues, which represent a huge backlog. ,,, but, thanks for asking.
I just tried to call you. Do you still have the same number?

Don't have time for more right now, just had to say that it's good to hear that evidently you are doing better! Another thing to be thankful to God about. Catch you later.
You are so sweet. That's why I put up with you. But I won't put up with your being cynical and bitter. I am very sorry you are overworked and in pain and under pressure from all sides. But I mean it, Dwayne. You know better than to take your anger and frustration out on other people. All God's children have problems. And we all often make mistakes in what we say.
1 Peter 3:4 (KJV)
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

Imitate me.

Rolf Ernst
January 23rd, 2004, 09:18 PM
POTATO HEAD--I know that you don't take serious much of the Scripture, but nevertheless, the BIBLE says, "I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I, the LORD, do all these things." Isa.45:6,7
"If a trumpet is blown in the city, will not the people be afraid? If there is evil in a city will not the LORD have done it?" Amos 3:6
I am sorry if you are incapable of understanding that God takes vengeance against the wicked, bringing troubles upon them according to His holy justice, but THAT IS SCRIPTURE. I guess you have been sitting in front of a "preacher" who is under control of the board of deacons and they have warnes him, "only preach velvet tongued, sticky sweet nothings. Tell unbelievers that they are NOT
underf the law, which is an administration of WRATH. Talk to every God hater as if they are under the covenant of grace even though they are Christ rejecters and GRACE comes only through that Christ whom they reject. If I have wrongly addressed this to you, please address your comments to those whom you address by name.
Will you Arminians NEVER learn that when wicked men do wickedly they may be instruments in the hands of God to execute vengeance against evil doers and that He does so in accord with His holy justice, and that no matter how you try you cannot fasten upon Him the guilt of those who act with EVIL motives?? What has blinded your mind that you cannot comprehend this?????????????????????

Knight
January 23rd, 2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Tye Porter

No.
Open Theism does.
Putting man's will over God's limits God. Tye... have you ever considered following the debate?

How about reading the posts and the responses we make?

Wouldn't it be more profitable for you to argue against an accurate version of what we think and say instead of the staw man version you create and then knock down?

Knight
January 23rd, 2004, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Mr Potato Head
God does not do evil, and bringing about evil would be doing evil. The Bible does not say God creates evil (except how some translations translate what he is referring to as his just judgment on sinners... see Isaiah 45:7). God is completely opposed to evil. God saw his creation and it was very good. Then evil came into it not from God and it fell. God hates evil. It grieves him. Claiming otherwise is to contradict the Living God. :first: POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12284)

wholearmor
January 23rd, 2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Poly
Could God not create life on this Earth without predestinating every event?

If not, may every prisoner be set free and may God be locked up in their place.

1Way
January 23rd, 2004, 10:54 PM
Jobeth - You said
But just as you said, God will surely bring good out of a seemingly awful occurrence. Considering the context of this discussion, such a comment is quite inaccurate. Nothing good comes from something bad, good and bad are opposites for a good reason. My humility towards self correction is a good RESPONSE, to a bad thing, the bad thing did not produce the good, the good response produced the good.

As to
You are so sweet. That's why I put up with you. But I won't put up with your being cynical and bitter. I am very sorry you are overworked and in pain and under pressure from all sides. But I mean it, Dwayne. You know better than to take your anger and frustration out on other people. Please refer to me by my handle on this public forum. You just attacked one of the main reasons I appreciate you. You always defended me in truth like when others tried to falsely accuse me, and now you do the opposite and even make a false charge against me. I have not treated you or anyone else here as you said. I know how to escalate godly opposition to an escalating offense. Ignorant mistakes are easily corrected, but if someone does not stand corrected by the truth, then a defiant rebelliousness represents a clear case for escalation.

Imitate you? God or you? God is known for saying that, but good leaders are good examples for others to follow. Generally speaking, women do not lead men. But, I'll gladly grant you that you are exemplary in displaying a meek and peaceful spirit, which is one of the things that God deeply appreciates. But people can and do mistake being kinder than God as such kind meekness, but you can not be nicer than God, some people try to be, but they only hurt themselves and others. God does not appreciate a meek humble acting blasphemers, meekness is not an end all quality, neither is love. You can be a meek and loving God hater, so lets not forget about the entire scope of scripture about what God appreciates and what He most certainly does not.

He also appreciates those who deal uprightly with the truth and accords themselves with the doctrine of godliness, and putting good for evil is the opposite of pleasing God.

How about instead of ignoring the majority of what I said, and attacking me, deal with what I have said especially because of the bible teachings I quote which serve to condemn you and those like you. God is the one I am trusting in all this, I think you place more trust in errant men than you do God, that is the only way one can ever say the vial things you say about God. God is good and righteous, but to you, He is what caused everything evil and bad, yet God hates those things and you seem to appreciate them and worse, attribute them to God.

I'm not bitter because I stand up for a righteous understanding of God, I'm loving because God's word taught me about His goodness and righteousness when I was a little tike. If you searched the truth out about God, and somewhat because of your own kind personality, I would hope that you could understand that God really is good and righteous and just. Remember, righteous means doing NO wrong, just means opposing wickedness, good means the opposite of bad/sin/evil. You can't reinvent God, He is good, He is righteous, He is just, and He is faithful and true! Well, you can try in a vain effort to reinvent God, but thank goodness that God refutes your view to no end.

You are my foe concerning "the truth" and "the way" and "the doctrine of godliness" to name a few, because you oppose every one of them by attributing evil to God. But you've known that all along. And if you dare suggest that God does evil because the bible plainly says so, I will have no fellowship with you because we both know how putrefied that notion is and how I demonstrated for example that "ra" (=Hebrew for bad/ruin/evil/calamity etc.) is a contextually modified "bad". It can be moral bad like evil/wrongdoing, or amoral bad like destruction or calamity or ruin, etc. I even showed you God's use of that same exact word where God used it speaking of an animal's blemish or discoloration, which was something that simply did not "look good", something that looked "bad", to prove that God's use of the word "ra" does not necessarily mean "moral evil". God does amoral ra, so God doing ra is better understood as God doing some sort of (righteous) punishment, not God doing moral evil. Or did you forget how God's word refutes your view? Or is your memory getting as bad as mine is?

Mr Potato Head
January 23rd, 2004, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by jobeth
Mr Potato Head

Regarding your post #71 of this thread:

I don't know who you were quoting but it was not me.

Can you please edit your post to credit those quotes to the correct person?


Sorry bout that. :doh:

Mr Potato Head
January 23rd, 2004, 11:26 PM
POTATO HEAD--I know that you don't take serious much of the Scripture, but nevertheless, the BIBLE says, "I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I, the LORD, do all these things." Isa.45:6,7
"If a trumpet is blown in the city, will not the people be afraid? If there is evil in a city will not the LORD have done it?" Amos 3:6
I am sorry if you are incapable of understanding that God takes vengeance against the wicked, bringing troubles upon them according to His holy justice, but THAT IS SCRIPTURE. I guess you have been sitting in front of a "preacher" who is under control of the board of deacons and they have warnes him, "only preach velvet tongued, sticky sweet nothings. Tell unbelievers that they are NOT
underf the law, which is an administration of WRATH. Talk to every God hater as if they are under the covenant of grace even though they are Christ rejecters and GRACE comes only through that Christ whom they reject. If I have wrongly addressed this to you, please address your comments to those whom you address by name.
Will you Arminians NEVER learn that when wicked men do wickedly they may be instruments in the hands of God to execute vengeance against evil doers and that He does so in accord with His holy justice, and that no matter how you try you cannot fasten upon Him the guilt of those who act with EVIL motives?? What has blinded your mind that you cannot comprehend this?????????????????????


Yes.... I know.... God's JUDGMENT is exactly what I was talking about. But if you think abortion is God's judgment against the United States your view of God is pretty dumb. At least if he's gonna judge us he might as well punish US and not the unborn babies. But maybe that's just me.

Secondly, Arminians don't deny God's judgment. And neither do I (seeing as I'm not an Arminian). We just don't attribute the evil acts of people to the God who died for us.

Poly
January 23rd, 2004, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

You too, Poly? You ALSO charge God with evil because of the evil MEN do??
Unfortunately I used to until I stopped taking other people's word for what was truth and actually searched out the bible for myself. I regret each and every day I ever thought that God predestined everything, including all the evil that would ever be committed by man. I'm now free to no end knowing that bad things do not come from God.


"The wages of sin is death" and God has the RIGHT to require that price of anyone at any stage of their life even if it be by the hands of wicked HUMANS WHO ARE THE ONES WHO KILL NOT AS A FORM OF JUSTICE, BUT SIMPLY OUT OF SELF-INTEREST AND IRRESPONSIBILITY?
Do you even hear yourself? God has the right to require death of men and it's ok and He sees that this is done by humans who have no right to do this. Wow, that is out there! :kookoo:


I guess you must be horrified that He at one time wiped the earth clean of all humanity except for the eight in the ark. How many infants MR. POLY, do you think died at THAT TIME??????????GIVE ME AN ANSWER--HOW MANY????????????
No doubt, many. And no, I'm not horrified at this in the least. I see a merciful God who, instead of letting man continue in generations of such a downward spiral that they could not know Him, He wiped them out.

You unbelieving Arminians...
Please! Arminians are way to Calvinistic for me. Try Open-theist.
have sat before sugar- tongued, ear-ticking preachers for so long that you can feel nothing at the thought of God's just wrath. You run around with syrupy sweet bumper stickers on the back of your car that say, SMIILLLEEE, God luvs YOU!
I'd rather have my pinky cut off than have a bumper sticker that says that or anything else that says that. :vomit:

And you would say that without shame to those whom He hates---
OOOooohh! FORGIVE ME!!! I forgot that you people have torn Psalm 11:5 and 5:11 out of your sticky sweet Bibles.
Psalm 11:5 "The Lord tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates." Nope, I'm never tearing that one out. You obviously know little about me. I'll be the first one to tell you that the Lord hates the wicked. But how does this prove that God is ok with babies being murdered and that He actually wants this because it's "His right" to give them life and then take it right back from them? Maybe you should read it again. He HATES wickedness, not ordains it.

WAKE UP. IT IS CHRIST WHO WILL TREAD THE "WINEPRESS OF THE FIERCENESS AND WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD."

Chill dude. Newsflash! Just because you choose to yell doesn't make what you have to say true. Whispered or shouted, blasphemy is blasphemy.

Z Man
January 24th, 2004, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Knight

:first: POTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12284)
Knight,

I must say, your POTD's are quite humorous!

:darwinsm:

Z Man
January 24th, 2004, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Poly
I'd rather have my pinky cut off than have a bumper sticker that says that or anything else that says that. :vomit:
Pinky??? Why not go for an arm, or a leg? That would be more interesting. :D

1Way
January 24th, 2004, 12:27 PM
Z man - That's funny about suggesting to cut off an arm or a leg instead, ,,, in a grotesque, yet morbid sort of way.

So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all? Or do you believe that there is no such things as sins of omission, just sins of commission?

God's word is unambiguous, if you allow evil to easily happen when you could have stopped it or somehow opposed it, that is an evil thing to "do", to not actively oppose evil.

So how do you rescue God from being the most evil person ever?

Z Man
January 24th, 2004, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills?
Of course He does.

Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all?
What do you mean when you say "all"?

God's word is unambiguous, if you allow evil to easily happen when you could have stopped it or somehow opposed it, that is an evil thing to "do", to not actively oppose evil.
Of course God opposes evil, but the fact that it exists is evidence itself that God does allow evil to happen. What shape would mankind and the world be in if God did not allow the evilness of His Son's crucifixtion to happen? We'd still be lost!

So how do you rescue God from being the most evil person ever?
More like, how can God rescue man from being the most evil being ever! :shocked:

Rolf Ernst
January 24th, 2004, 04:51 PM
POLY--You say bad things don't come from God? Do you believe that it is possible for the same event to be either good or evil depending upon the perspective from which it is seen? Could I get a yes or no? It is a simple and clear cut issue.
Do you believe that the same event might be in accord with the will of two very different individuals, that an evil person may be willing, even instrumental in the event out of evil motives, and another may be willing the same event yet for a good and just purpose?

After thinking about these two questions, consider the substitutionary atonement of Christ. God the Father's will and purpose was in it. "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him. He has put Him to grief." Isa. 53:10 and the evil intent of men who willed EVIL against Him was also involved "Him being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have crucified by wicked hands and put to death." Acts 2:23

INCIDENTALLY--people might conceivably use capitalizations to draw special attention to certain points. The english language does not have stress marks as do some languages. If someone writing in english wants to EMPHASIZE, for the purpose of clearly communicating a point, how do YOU recommend that they do it?
Personally, when I see caps, I assume that the other person is using them as stress points. Sometimes I wish the english language was a little more expressive--without ad hominems and purple language, of course

If you have considered the example of both God's will and man's will being involved in Christ offering Himself up, go just a little bit further and think about Job--satan and God were both involved from different perspectives; satan with his evil intent, and God with His holy purpose. The same event was willed by different personages with two radically different motivations--one evil and the other holy.
Was God, who has the right to determine and bring to an end the span of evedry man's life, guilty of murdering Job's servants simply because He used evil men as instruments who had no RIGHT to take life? Was God, who gives to all men their posessions, guilty of theft simply because He used evil men with theft in their heart in taking from Job that which He had given him?
Or consider the incident where Joseph was sold into slavery and Joseph told his brothers years later, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." Again, motivation must be considered. What was God's motivation? What was the motivation of Joseph's brothers?
Or consider God's judgement against His people in Isa. 10. Assyria is referred to as the rod of His anger (v.5); as instruments of judgement in His hands like the ax and the saw (v.15). God's motivation is in sending Assyria against people for judgement (v.6),
but Assyria's motivation is evil (v.7-14).
God fulfills His just purpose of executing judgement against His wandering people, Assyrias motive is contrary to God's motive. Again, same deed, different motives--one holy, one evil; and God, who used Assyria in executing His will, later executes jusgement against Assyria for its evbil motive in that deed. Was God guilty because evil men with wicked motives acted according to their evil intent?
Some who post on this forum would charge God with being guilty of all the crimes listed above. THAT is blasphemy. THAT is not in accord with the spirit of the righteous man Job who bowed his head and said, the LORD has given, and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD."
The REAL issue in recent discussions has been the fact of God's sovereign will in all things. Unbelievers so dislike a God with that absolute power that they vengefully and wickedly try to fasten upon Him the guilt that belongs only to those who acted with evil intent and motives.
God doesn't just consider a man's actions. He also considers the motivation of man's heart. I am sure the wicked with try to draw poison out of His doing that also. "Why do the heathen rage, and the people plot a vain thing?"

billwald
January 24th, 2004, 05:34 PM
Reformed Christianity, not Calvinism, limits God because Reformed Christians fail to follow their doctrines to their ultimate conclusion. Reformed, like the rest of the church, doesn't believe that God can save anyone because of Jesus'es atonement but are actually Pelagian because it is taught that a person has to respond to specific Christian doctrine before God can save him.

1Way
January 24th, 2004, 06:34 PM
Z man - I'm only guessing, but you didn't give much effort into your post to me, did you. LOL. Here is what you posted.

Originally posted by 1Way
So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? Of course He does.

Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all? What do you mean when you say "all"? Now, this time, consider what I said only without separating everything as you did.
So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all? Or do you believe that there is no such things as sins of omission, just sins of commission? You see, when you simply consider the context that the meaning in question is used in, often the clarity is self provided. You have to ignore the context to not understand what I meant when I used the word "all". Let that be a lesson to you, if you are so inclined towards understanding the truth without violating the context for which it belongs.

You posted

God's word is unambiguous, if you allow evil to easily happen when you could have stopped it or somehow opposed it, that is an evil thing to "do", to not actively oppose evil. Of course God opposes evil, but the fact that it exists is evidence itself that God does allow evil to happen. What shape would mankind and the world be in if God did not allow the evilness of His Son's crucifixtion to happen? We'd still be lost! And again we see that you seem unaware of the context which has been simply and clearly placed before you. I actually included the following which guides the context of your quote but that you did not include for some strange reason. Although it is separated by a paragraph, I did not mean to sever the train of thought altogether.
So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all? Or do you believe that there is no such things as sins of omission, just sins of commission?

God's word is unambiguous, if you allow evil to easily happen when you could have stopped it or somehow opposed it, that is an evil thing to "do", to not actively oppose evil. You see, I was referring to the idea of God being in control of "everything" thus because of moral deeds of omission "and" commission, since God controls everything by His wills as I suspected you would say, then unless you don't believe in sins of omission, how do you rescue God from being the most evil person ever. So I was not questioning if God opposes evil. You have to be really careless, or trying to misunderstand what I said to get that out of my simple and clear post to you. Please try again to understand what I actually said, and respond to what I actually communicated, not your fragmented/disconnected ideas.

You ended up saying
More like, how can God rescue man from being the most evil being ever! :shocked: Well you are starting to sound like my view now, are you confused, we are not on the same side, other than both being Christians, right? So, if you grant the validity of the teachings

of "sins of omission" and not just sins of commission,

and that God controls everything,

and that evil obviously still happens,

then how do you rescue God from being as evil as all the evil that He permits instead of doing everything He could to stop it? Do you suggest that He is not powerful enough to stop all evil from happening? Please explain. I think that what I have posted here may represent perhaps an early junior high level grade of reading/writting skill, perhaps even lower than that, I hope you can read for comprehension at a higher capability than what you have displayed so far. (Boy oh boy, some people's kids, ya gotta constantly watch over them, tell then what to do, make them shape up, and some just are sooooo, ,,, .)

1Way
January 24th, 2004, 07:27 PM
billwald - You said
Reformed, like the rest of the church, doesn't believe that God can save anyone because of Jesus'es atonement but are actually Pelagian because it is taught that a person has to respond to specific Christian doctrine before God can save him. Right, as though your doctrine for man's response for salvation is not required for man to be saved... Everyone has such a doctrine, even you. You just describe the nature of man's response differently or attribute it to God instead of man, so I think you presume too much.

Pelagianism raises man's free will and attacks God's soverign individual choice concerning who gets saved, and to that extent, I agree, but he also taught that babies did not need baptizm for salvation, they were born innocent and did not need an internal sort of grace to help them get saved, and there I disagree with Palagius, God gave His grace to everyone and wills that all be saved, so everyone is capable of beign saved, and now we are back to agreeing with Pelagius. From what I gather, he was mostly right, but was confussed about God's grace and God's foreknowledge. He taught that by man's own merit alone, man advances in holiness, so there's another I would disagree with, sanctification is always connected by the work of the HS in man. It seems to me that his teachings may have had long lasting effects that helped the reformers stop being catholic over issues like infant water baptism for example, to bad He accepted the idea that God foreknows in advance everyone how will become saved, a deeply Augustinian view, and he seemed to hate Augustine's teachings the most. Live and learn.

You honestly think that Reformed theology is accurately described as being Pelagian? :think:

jobeth
January 24th, 2004, 09:24 PM
1way asked:
"how do you rescue God from being as evil as all the evil that He permits instead of doing everything He could to stop it?"

You rescue God from being evil, knowing God neglects to prevent evil that He could easily prevent if He wanted to, By denying that any unnecessary evil ever actually occurs.

If everything that happens, even the bad stuff, always works together to facilitate good in the end, then the "bad" affliction of all events, can be considered light and temporal, compared with the good that ultimately ensues. And this is true for ALL circumstances and ALL situations. Indeed, God may be "causing" or "allowing" a seemingly "evil" event for a "good" and meaningful purpose.

This is why we are encouraged, even commanded, to exercise patience in affliction. We do not know the end, nor do we know how everything is going to work out. Knowing this, how can we POSSIBLY interpret the "good" or "evil" of any small event, compared with the grandness and glory of God's eternal purpose?????

How does it make you feel when someone has not tried to consider your point of view? Well, can't you at least consider that I look at things from the eternal perspective of assurance that ALL things work together for good, rather than my assuming the perspective that some things are random and unnecessary? I am not calling "evil" good. Rather, what I am saying is that the so-called "evil" that occurs is not random or unnecessary, but meaningful and serves a good purpose, even when we cannot see that purpose or understand how it will eventually work for our benefit.

I remember once, years ago, a man came into my lane and hit my car head-on. Both my children were buckled up in the back seat, but we were all uninjured, thank God. Well my car was totaled, but I received more insurance money for the car than what I'd paid for it, because it was new, and I'd gotten a good deal on it. I was able to replace the car, put money in the kid's savings account, and still had some left over. Now, are you going to tell me that God and grace had nothing to do with that? I refuse to believe that was just good luck! Yes, the experience of the accident was horrible at the time. But I could never believe that God had nothing to do with it.

Remember that the Pharasees refused to believe that Jesus has performed healings by the power of God. They attributed Jesus' miracles to Satan. And Jesus told them they were blaspheming the Holy Ghost, by attributing to demons what God had done.

What if it is a mistake to say that God is not responsible for a particular event EVEN IF that event turns out for our benefit? Wouldn't that be the same type of blasphemy that the Pharasees were guilty of? Can't you at least consider the possibility that God knew all along how well things would turn out, and so that is why He did not prevent the so-called "evil", even though He could have?

1Way
January 24th, 2004, 10:23 PM
Jobeth - I already addressed your lack of reason about uneccesary evil by pointing out that evil is still evil, pretending that evil is necessary does nothing to the fact that evil/sin/wickedness/immorality/injustice/imorality/lawlessness/inquity/ungodliness is still against God and His will. For you to in essence say that it is God's will, is begging the question of what all those ills just formentioned mean. Is that why you conveniently forgot to answer my questions to you? So that you can pretend like I did not already defeat your notion of neccessary evil? Don't beg the question, and don't pretend like I did not already address this and you already avoided it.

You said
How does it make you feel when someone has not tried to consider your point of view? Well, can't you at least consider that I look at things from the eternal perspective of assurance that ALL things work together for good, rather than my assuming the perspective that some things are random and unnecessary? :mad: It does not mean all things without exception, the exceptions are stated right there in that same verse! It says that only applies to those who love God and who are called according to his purpose. That greatly qualifies and limits the "all things for good" idea to a small minority of things, since the vast majority of people do not love God. Look on the bright side, all you have to do is excersise a little readig for comprehension skills, say somewhere around the 4 or 5th grade level, and you'll be cured of missing ideas like, to those who love God and are called...

Jobeth, chuckles, go like this with your finger, no over there, you have some bible bits stuck between your teeth, there you go, it sort of stuck out there noticable, it's ok now, you got it. :thumb:

As to your comment about luck and chance events, God says that some things, even life and death things, happen by chance and or without God causing it to happen. See the good semaritan and the tower of salom passages (splls?).

You said
Remember that the Pharasees refused to believe that Jesus has performed healings by the power of God. They attributed Jesus' miracles to Satan. And Jesus told them they were blaspheming the Holy Ghost, by attributing to demons what God had done. Great point Jobeth! It is blasphemous to attribute to demons what God had done, and thus the same is true in both directions, to attribute to God what demons had done is blasphemous because you should always give God credit only for what He does, not what others do.

But let me clarify, are you siding with the arguements of the men who hated God and wanted to kill Jesus Christ as though what they said are the words to live by? i.e. the claim that what Jesus did was done by demons was a false claim, yet your view assumes it to be true, i.e. that God does demonic work. They also said He was demon possessed, so do you now think that God was demon possessed too? I realize the truth of what God did, God corrected the false accusers for being false, not for rightly attributing evil to God. You must really be desperate to side with unbeileving who wanted to kill Jesus Christ just so that your unbiblical and contextually ripped views can be supported in your eyes only.

I repeat the simple, the obvious:

Is there such a thing as


Godly ungodliness?

Unrighteous sinful righteousness?

Morally upright imorality?

Just injustice?

A wrong that is right?

A truth that is false?

A yes that is no?

A light that is darkness?

Sweet that is bitter?

Holy unholiness?

:doh:

jobeth
January 24th, 2004, 10:40 PM
1way:
Call me. On the phone. I need to talk to you.

1Way
January 24th, 2004, 10:42 PM
Jobeth, I lost your number months ago during some bizzar phone troubles. Maybe email me and go from there, sorry.


Do you know what mm's are? Moral Morons.duh, what is evil, what is good, God's will is for both, right? ah, yep, God does evil and good both and His good nature somehow makes the evil that God does, into "good godly ungodliness" and of course there the ever popular "righteous unrighteousness" and the "down home down right divine evil, sin and iniquity", and last but not least, don't forget about dear old "unjust justice" and "upright and morally good immorality".

Z Man
January 25th, 2004, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by 1Way
Now, this time, consider what I said only without separating everything as you did. You see, when you simply consider the context that the meaning in question is used in, often the clarity is self provided. You have to ignore the context to not understand what I meant when I used the word "all". Let that be a lesson to you, if you are so inclined towards understanding the truth without violating the context for which it belongs.
Dude, I'm not stupid, so don't talk to me like I am. Thank you.

You posted this:

So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all? Or do you believe that there is no such things as sins of omission, just sins of commission?
Your first question was "what is your view". View of what? You explain in the next sentence; my view on "Does God control everything". If I agree that He does, then that's when your third sentence comes into play, which states, Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all. Hence is a cause and effect transition. That third sentence is valid only if I believe that God does indeed control everything, agreeing with your second sentence, which I do.

So, because I do believe God controls everything, you asked me does that mean God is responsible for it all. Now my question to you was simply what do you mean by all? That's such a general word. It could mean a broad spectrum of things. Before I go on rambling about about what I assume your definition of "all" means, I thought that I would simply ask for your definition of the word.

Any person who reads your paragraph will make the same observations as I have. Therefore, if you believe that I did not understand you correctly, I suggest you clarify your ideas and concerns a lot better than you did.

Now let's move on. I do not wish to debate about symantics or grammar or anything of the sort.

You see, I was referring to the idea of God being in control of "everything" thus because of moral deeds of omission "and" commission, since God controls everything by His wills as I suspected you would say, then unless you don't believe in sins of omission, how do you rescue God from being the most evil person ever. So I was not questioning if God opposes evil. You have to be really careless, or trying to misunderstand what I said to get that out of my simple and clear post to you. Please try again to understand what I actually said, and respond to what I actually communicated....
I did.

Do you suggest that [God] is not powerful enough to stop all evil from happening? Please explain.
God is most definitly powerful enough to stop evil, but doing so would rob us of the one thing we enjoy; the glory of God.

God desires self-exaltation. He wants nothing more than to see people worship, praise, and glorify Him because He knows that in doing so, people are most happy and satisfied. And sometimes, to get the glory that God demands, He allows evil to happen, or He will destroy or create calamity to bring His glory about. He allows evil for a much greater cause - a cause that we all benefit from and desire - the glorification of God.

I think that what I have posted here may represent perhaps an early junior high level grade of reading/writting skill, perhaps even lower than that, I hope you can read for comprehension at a higher capability than what you have displayed so far. (Boy oh boy, some people's kids, ya gotta constantly watch over them, tell then what to do, make them shape up, and some just are sooooo, ,,, .)
Again, we're both adults here. Treat the conversation as such. Show some respect, and we might have a good debate here; one in which we could both learn a few things.

In everything, may God be glorified!

:zman:

1Way
January 25th, 2004, 10:24 AM
Z man - I don't simply go by claims, I'm big on truth and righteousness, I go by the (demonstrative/established) truth and righteousness of a matter. I'll see if I can help you.



(My advise to you specifically on this issue) (ridicule mode: off)
A word (or smaller unit of communication) is subjugated to it's (contextual) use within phrases and sentences and paragraphs and chapters and so on (or larger units of communication).

If

you don't understand the meaning from some smaller unit(s) of communication,

then

continue reading to see if the idea progresses to be fleshed out in the ongoing contextual development

but, if

you do understand the meaning from the some smaller unit(s) of communication,

then

ignore the suggestion to continue reading to grasp the idea conveyed by that unit, but don't forget to keep the wider context in mind for it's added contextual development and do not violate the (wider) context.

Many people naturally assume that since they place ideas consecutive one after the other, and because each idea further advances the train of thought, that such a logical connection is a good way to communicate and develop what you are trying to say. Maybe I'm wrong, but it (normally) works for me (sans willful problem interjecting), I sincerely hope it helps you to remember to 1) understand and 2) not violate the context.



(The text explained) (verbose mode: on)
Here is the confusing text Z man just can not understand sufficiently, even after two attempts and one solid clue about what I meant to convey.


(1) So what is your view? (2) Does God control everything (3) through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? (4) Hence (5) God is ultimately responsible for it all (6) ? (7) Or (8) do you believe that there is no such things as sins of omission, just sins of commission?
(1) Right, this sentence begs the question, about what? Which may give a subtle clue to the reader that he must consider the wider context in order to understand what view the writer has in mind.

(2) Fortunately, you understand this question which was demonstrated by your simple and clear response. This is the first contextual development of what the writer is referring to in the opening statement, and if this is accurate, the ensuing ideas should conform and or modify this idea through natural contextual development.

(3) Again, you understood this idea and affirmed it to be according to your belief, and we see that this idea is further development of what the writer has in mind.

(4) Here is where your understanding broke down. The word Hence, is a connecting word, like train cars connecting together by the hooks at each end of the train car, those hooks connect trains of thought together! Other words and phrases do the same sort of thing, like; and, although, indeed, even so, but, then again, yet, therefore, and the ever popular hence. So do not separate the proceeding ideas from the following ideas, they are connected together as in a developing train of thought.

(5) That idea is a natural continuation of the previous ideas. So the words "it all" is a simple reference to the previous word "everything" and the word "everything" (as you already demonstrated you know) modifies (or describes) the idea of how much "God controls", and you understood that last bit because you answered that much with a clear answer, saying yes, God controls everything.

(6) So the comment restated within its contextual development, is, God is responsible for all that He controls, and God (does or does not) controls everything. Actually, my wording assumes your response to the former question in the affirmative that God does control everything, that is why I thought it appropriate to not present the follow up idea (God is responsible for everything) in more than one form. So heres a restatement of question 6, is God ultimately responsible for (all of) everything that He controls?

(7) "Or", again I am employing a crafty communication tool, I am conjoining the previous ideas to the following ideas with one single word, it's technical name is a conjunction, but lay people may refer to it as a "connecting word", like connecting so many cars in a train of thought!

(8) This is the last contextually developed idea concerning the opening line about your view. It is saying,

doesn't sins of omission exist?

And more than that, if you were to put the entire train of thought together, linked and developed as they naturally are, you have the following implication and train of thought.

Because of the reality of sins of omission, and because beings are only responsible over that which that have control over, and since God is said to have control over everything, obviously including sin and evil, how do you account for all those sins of omission committed by God? Which brings me to my final thought, how do you rescue God from being responsible for every sin and evil that ever has or will take place? In fact, that is exactly what I continue to say, showing a complete logical contextual flow and development, where the entire communication is linked together contextually, starting with the more basic foundational ideas first, and ending up with the final challenge to your position. Here is the second part of what I said.


God's word is unambiguous, if you allow evil to easily happen when you could have stopped it or somehow opposed it, that is an evil thing to "do", to not actively oppose evil.

So how do you rescue God from being the most evil person ever?
I hope this helped you understand for comprehension's sake, what I said. Also, respectful discourse is a two way street, the level of trust and respect between any two people is always only as high or good and the weekest link. The links on your side of the chain are shall we say, in need of improvement. As for my side, I'd love to have a respectable discussion, that is why I am here and asking these things of you. Please don't confuse my good as bad, I assumed that the use and funtion of conjunctions, and the fact of contextual developement would be common knowledge. But that's fine, the water under the bridge seems passed us now. Since you are kindly asking for it, I extend grace on our behalf and for the bond we have in Christ.

May the truth and righteousness be our guide.

1Way
January 25th, 2004, 11:09 AM
Let me see if I can order the issues in a tight logical progression.

Granting the following:

Sin and evil is that which goes against God and His will

God controls everything including sin and evil

Beings are responsible only and precisely for that which they have control over

God is powerful and good enough to stop all sin and evil

Sin and evil happen on a large and hideous scale in reality

Omitting opposition against sin and evil, is in itself a sin, an evil
So, to say as you do that God controls everything, is the same as saying that God is responsible for everything, and since sin and evil plagues and even predominates this world, how do you rescue God from being responsible for (and/or controlling) all sin and evil?


As to what you said


God is most definitely powerful enough to stop evil, but doing so would rob us of the one thing we enjoy; the glory of God.

God desires self-exaltation. He wants nothing more than to see people worship, praise, and glorify Him because He knows that in doing so, people are most happy and satisfied. And sometimes, to get the glory that God demands, He allows evil to happen, or He will destroy or create calamity to bring His glory about. He allows evil for a much greater cause - a cause that we all benefit from and desire - the glorification of God. So your answer is apparently, you do not rescue God from being responsible for all sin and evil. And so right there we have an immediate contradiction. I could demonstrate from scripture how wrong it is to praise and worship anything connect with sin and evil, but we will get no where with contradiction at the foundation.

Sin and evil are that which go against God and His will
if as you say, sin and evil are a part of, and not diametrically against God and His will, then you are working with more than one working understanding of what sin and evil actually mean. Please explain because foundational issues matter, and duplicity is another word for instability or an unstable mind. Moving closer to the truth, one doable step at a time.

Pleasant, respectful, intelligent, clear, logical, and thoughtfully poring over this issue for our mutual benefit.

Z Man
January 25th, 2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
Z man - I don't simply go by claims, I'm big on truth and righteousness, I go by the (demonstrative/established) truth and righteousness of a matter. I'll see if I can help you.
I definitely do not need your help. Thanks anyways.

The rest of that post was nothing more than a "politically correct" way to ridicule me in the ways of grammar or what not. I already stated that I had no particular interest in debating on that subject. I understand exactly what your statement was implying, and I answered your statement. Just because you do not like my answer does not mean that I'm wrong...

Sin and evil are that which go against God and His will
if as you say, sin and evil are a part of, and not diametrically against God and His will, then you are working with more than one working understanding of what sin and evil actually mean. Please explain because foundational issues matter, and duplicity is another word for instability or an unstable mind. Moving closer to the truth, one doable step at a time.
God's will was that His Son be crucified. The death of Christ was the greatest evil imaginable; mankind murdered the Son of God!!! Yet, God allowed it to happen....

:think:

Mr Potato Head
January 25th, 2004, 03:27 PM
God's will was that His Son be crucified. The death of Christ was the greatest evil imaginable; mankind murdered the Son of God!!! Yet, God allowed it to happen....

Ok, so since he manipulated the already evil men to get the evil necessary for the most pivotal act of history to happen he must cause it for every individual atrocity throughout history... :down:

Z Man
January 25th, 2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

Ok, so since he manipulated the already evil men to get the evil necessary for the most pivotal act of history to happen he must cause it for every individual atrocity throughout history... :down:
The point is, God uses evil for His glory. So what's the problem of Him using it through other people's lives? If He allowed the most imaginable evil ever to be committed against His Son, what's the big deal if He allows it in other people's lives?

Rolf Ernst
January 25th, 2004, 05:29 PM
BILLWALD--Your post #94 is an atrocious misrepresentation of the reformed faith. Reformed people agree with the Scripture that the Holy Spirit raises sinners from death into life, regenerating them and creating new creatures in Christ; not on the basis of anything those "dead" sinners under the wrath of God did, but solely because they were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
"Awake, you who sleep, arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light." To misrepresent someone is to bear false witness against them.

Rolf Ernst
January 25th, 2004, 05:50 PM
1WAY--Your post #91: How do YOU, a mere mortal who is unable to see the justice and holiness of God as His vindicates His holy law by judgements against violators of it, RESCUE HIM FROM BEING EVIL?
And you don't even have the sense to see the blasphemy in what you have said.
You insist on blaspheming God by casting Him into the same lot as those who violate His law.
"The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned."
Or are you just to stupid to understand that God, in His holiness, might have a holy and good purpose in the same event about which a man such as yourself might have only an EVIL motive?

Z Man
January 25th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

1WAY--Your post #91: How do YOU, a mere mortal who is unable to see the justice and holiness of God as His vindicates His holy law by judgements against violators of it, RESCUE HIM FROM BEING EVIL?
And you don't even have the sense to see the blasphemy in what you have said.
You insist on blaspheming God by casting Him into the same lot as those who violate His law.
"The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned."
Or are you just to stupid to understand that God, in His holiness, might have a holy and good purpose in the same event about which a man such as yourself might have only an EVIL motive?
:thumb:

Mr Potato Head
January 25th, 2004, 06:54 PM
If He allowed the most imaginable evil ever to be committed against His Son, what's the big deal if He allows it in other people's lives?

If he predestined the rape and murder of an infant that's a big deal. Besides, no one's saying he doesn't allow evil, unless you think that the world's still "very good," just that the God who died for us is above it and does" not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men" (Lam. 3:33). Evil is a product of the sins of men and angels, not God's will.



Or are you just to stupid to understand that God, in His holiness, might have a holy and good purpose in the same event about which a man such as yourself might have only an EVIL motive?

"Dear God, thank you for allowing my 4 year old daughter to be kidnapped. I don't know if she's alive or has her virginity still but God you are good! John Calvin says that it's part of your plan and we know how wise he is! And God, thank you for the kidnapper, thank you for that instrument of your wrath on little Sarah.
In Jesus, yes, the very one who said 'let the little children come,' name,
Amen"

Rolf Ernst
January 25th, 2004, 07:43 PM
POTATO HEAD: Who ever said that God manipulates? Those are YOUR words. They are not the words of Scripture, nor of anyone other than yourself. God gave them up (as in Romans 1:24,26, and 28 and in psalm 81:11,12), and they, from the evil of their nature, did the works of SATAN THEIR FATHER. They did according to the works of SATAN THEIR FATHER. FROM OUT OF THE EVIL OF THEIR OWN HEART, THEY MOVED WITH WICKED INTENT, JUST AS SATAN THEIR FATHER DOES.
Therefore, when YOU charge God with evil simply because He had a HOLY purpose in what took place, you blasphemer, you are placing the thrice HOLY God on the same level as Satan, charging Him with the evil residing in the heart of evildoers.
Your wicked heart may be gleeful over that, blasphemer, but you be sure of this:"FOR EVERY IDLE WORD THAT MAN SPEAKS, HE WILL GIVE AN ACCOUNT."
Are you demon posessed??????????????? It is sickening to deal with you people who refuse to see that in the same event, men may act with wicked intent, but God's purpose in that event is just and perfect.
Now listen, you blasphemers--hear the word of God: "Even the wrath of man shall praise you, and the remainder of wrath you will restrain." Psalm 76:10 Your charging Him with guilt because He works truth and justice even when men are fighting against
Him is a part of that "wrath" from men from which He will get praise to Himself. When the righteous see that God did not let your idle words against Him go unpunished, they will rejoice!!!!!!!
Read that last verse again and realize the no sin--not even one-- which God does not work to His praise is allowed by Him to take place. Whether you understand or not, it is in your best interest to SHUT YOUR BLASPHEMOUS MOUTHS ON THIS ISSUE!!

1Way
January 25th, 2004, 07:59 PM
Z Man - I explained what you said and demonstrated that you did not understand. Yet you assume that you answered me even though you absolutely did not, instead you asked what I meant. You said

Originally posted by 1Way
So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? Of course He does.

Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all? What do you mean when you say "all"? Not only that, after you said that, I followed up with an explanation of what I meant so that you could then hopefully understand and respond to what I said. I said the following precisely to help you understand what you plainly said you did not understand.
Now, this time, consider what I said only without separating everything as you did.

quoting the same text again... You see, when you simply consider the context that the meaning in question is used in, often the clarity is self provided. You have to ignore the context to not understand what I meant when I used the word "all". Let that be a lesson to you, if you are so inclined towards understanding the truth without violating the context for which it belongs.
And you even responded yet another time saying that you still were not clear about what I meant even after my attempt at demonstrating what you did wrong. You posted the following in a more collected fashion, but without my follow up explanation of what I meant. It's like you are trying to avoid what I am trying to say.



So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all? Or do you believe that there is no such things as sins of omission, just sins of commission? Your first question was "what is your view". View of what? You explain in the next sentence; my view on "Does God control everything". If I agree that He does, then that's when your third sentence comes into play, which states, Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all. Hence is a cause and effect transition. That third sentence is valid only if I believe that God does indeed control everything, agreeing with your second sentence, which I do.

So, because I do believe God controls everything, you asked me does that mean God is responsible for it all. (1) Now my question to you was simply what do you mean by all? That's such a general word. It could mean a broad spectrum of things. Before I go on rambling about about what I assume your definition of "all" means, I thought that I would simply ask for your definition of the word.

(2) Any person who reads your paragraph will make the same observations as I have. (3) Therefore, if you believe that I did not understand you correctly, I suggest you clarify your ideas and concerns a lot better than you did.

Now let's move on. I do not wish to debate about symantics or grammar or anything of the sort.
(1) And I trusted your sincerity over not understanding, so I went to great pains to explain what I meant, yet you charge wrong doing for my good.

(2) You say that the problem of understanding what I said is with my communication, not the audience. Again you argue that you did not understand what I said.

(3) What are you talking about, you never even indicated that you understand what I am talking about, you just got done argueing why you did not understand it, and what, now you do? You are not very clear at all, in fact, you seem as confused as could be. Yet, after me going into verbose mode and going step by step over the text in question, including my explanation of what I meant by the use of the words, it all, after all that, you come back with
I definitely do not need your help. Thanks anyways.

The rest of that post was nothing more than a "politically correct" way to ridicule me in the ways of grammar or what not. I already stated that I had no particular interest in debating on that subject. I understand exactly what your statement was implying, and I answered your statement. Just because you do not like my answer does not mean that I'm wrong... That is not true, you never answered if God is responsible for it all, instead you strung me along all this time in an effect to clarify what I meant. And I thought you were being honest about your problem with understanding. ??? The fact is that everything stated above actually did take place, and actually was our discussion over this issue of misunderstanding, including my verbose mode explanation which I did not repost for brevities sake. You only constantly maintain that you did not understand because I was not clear enough!

So which is it? I finally was clear enough for you to understand and respond, or I never was clear enough which was your story until just now when you altered it 100% from not understanding me, to understanding me enough to have already answered me.

If you can not deal honestly with such a simple and self evident issue, how can anyone expect you to be upright with anything more important and complex? Help us understand what you are trying to say so that we can move on.

godrulz
January 25th, 2004, 08:14 PM
The life and ministry of the Son of God reveals the way God is (see me= see Father).

Jesus came to oppose, resist, and destroy evil. He did not affirm evil as inherently good or in the will of God. It is a risky consequence of creating moral agents with genuine freedom. God creatively redeems and mitigates evil at times, but this does not mean it is consistent with His character or causation.

1Way
January 25th, 2004, 08:59 PM
Z Man and all - I think we have a problem of not dealing upright with moral responsibility. God holds the person responsible for the evil, not the victim or anyone else. The evil done upon Jesus at the cross was in no way attributed to God, it was done by man's self directed self controlled evil will. Consider.
Rom 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. So it is a false question about God being implicated in the evil that took place upon Jesus, what God did do was righteous by passing over sins, it is loving and good to give your life for your friends, no implication of wrong doing in that. It is only when the person believes the overstated idea that "God is in control of everything" that somehow scripture must have been wrong when it describes God's involvement of the death of Jesus at the cruxifiction as "righteous" and "just", not as Z Man and others are trying to say. God is right, the omni-causalist is wrong. God is not in control of everything, man is in control of his own free will, and it is always through free will moral agents that evil (or for that matter good) comes from.

So the evil at the cross was done by man although God did not absolutely know how it would be done, God was wise enough to know that He would have no shortage of evil men who would kill His son if given half the chance. So the evil intentions were already there in place, so for God to do His work of redemption, all He had to do was to deceive the deceiver, and make the devil think that by killing Jesus, Christ would be vanquished, but He rose from the dead and Jesus Christ is Lord and God and the devil won nothing.

Like in a hand to hand combat, I think jujitsu or is it judo, is where it is noted for using your opponents efforts against himself. Same principle is used here, God did something good, by tricking the devil into thinking that it would be good to kill Jesus, instead he sealed his own doom. God did not direct, control nor orchestrate the evil that killed Jesus, He just realized it existed in abundance and used the evil efforts and intentions of men that already existed to thwart evil. And such a thing is always a good thing to do, to use your enemies resources against him.

When trying to determine who is responsible when there are more than one party involved, you always need to ask the question, was that a response to something evil or the initial cause of something evil? It is always good to oppose evil, and that is exactly what God did at the cross, and it is always wrong to cause evil, and that is exactly not what God did at the cross.

Z Man said
The point is, God uses evil for His glory. Where is that from, first Pagans chapter one verse one? That is about as opposite of the truth as could be, and since you are saved, you should know that by the leading of the HS let alone the teaching of scripture. Consider the question, was God responding to evil in a righteous way? Or did God cause the evil directly Himself. So really Z Man, because of your errent presuppositions, you are forced to say the most ungodly things about,,, God of all things. I hope you can objectively review your thoughts on this, because it is always right to respond righteously to an evil that already exists, even if you use the enemies effort against them, that is a righteous response, that is NOT causing the evil.

1Way
January 25th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Mr Potato - I think you are being caught by the omnicausal position when you need not be. If you grant that God used/controlled evil once, then what is the difference if He did it 10 or a thousand or everytime evil happens? The point is that it was evil and a righteous God should always oppose evil. I do not grant that God was responsable for any evil at the cross because God said so in Rom 3:25-26. Notice, He did not say that He is glorified in evil, He says that it was a good thing to pass over sins.

I agree with Z Man that if God did the most evil thing imaginable, any lessor evil would just be that much easier to (try to) justify. I hope you agree with me that these omnicausalists are trying to establish a new definition for what sin and evil is.

Sin and evil is that which goes against God and His will (Right?)

unless it's a good godly sort of sin and evil, then it's not sin, err, well, it's, God glorifying evil. err. ya.

See? I don't say that it was God's will for evil intentions to kill Jesus, I say that those evil intentions were simply responded against in a righteous fashion. Resonse is the key idea. They are a funny bunch, God glorifies in evil, chuckles, now was that out of the Satanic bible or what? ;)

Mr Potato Head
January 25th, 2004, 09:31 PM
POTATO HEAD: Who ever said that God manipulates? Those are YOUR words. They are not the words of Scripture, nor of anyone other than yourself. God gave them up (as in Romans 1:24,26, and 28 and in psalm 81:11,12), and they, from the evil of their nature, did the works of SATAN THEIR FATHER. They did according to the works of SATAN THEIR FATHER. FROM OUT OF THE EVIL OF THEIR OWN HEART, THEY MOVED WITH WICKED INTENT, JUST AS SATAN THEIR FATHER DOES.
Therefore, when YOU charge God with evil simply because He had a HOLY purpose in what took place, you blasphemer, you are placing the thrice HOLY God on the same level as Satan, charging Him with the evil residing in the heart of evildoers.
Your wicked heart may be gleeful over that, blasphemer, but you be sure of this:"FOR EVERY IDLE WORD THAT MAN SPEAKS, HE WILL GIVE AN ACCOUNT."
Are you demon posessed??????????????? It is sickening to deal with you people who refuse to see that in the same event, men may act with wicked intent, but God's purpose in that event is just and perfect.
Now listen, you blasphemers--hear the word of God: "Even the wrath of man shall praise you, and the remainder of wrath you will restrain." Psalm 76:10 Your charging Him with guilt because He works truth and justice even when men are fighting against
Him is a part of that "wrath" from men from which He will get praise to Himself. When the righteous see that God did not let your idle words against Him go unpunished, they will rejoice!!!!!!!
Read that last verse again and realize the no sin--not even one-- which God does not work to His praise is allowed by Him to take place. Whether you understand or not, it is in your best interest to SHUT YOUR BLASPHEMOUS MOUTHS ON THIS ISSUE!!


:darwinsm:

Who ever said Trinity?? Not scripture...

Yet when God uses the evil nation of Assyria to accomplish his purpose of destroying Israel, that is manipulating them. When
God used the evil of the Sanheidrin and the Romans, that was manipulating them. And I'll bet you could ask just about any Christian on this site if God manipulates evil men and they will say yes. I guarantee I'm not the only one anyways.



Your charging Him with guilt because He works truth and justice even when men are fighting against
Him is a part of that "wrath" from men from which He will get praise to Himself.

Now there's an example of manipulation! You blasphemer you...

And I'm gonna use your tactic right here: WHAT POSSIBLE GREATER GOOD COULD GOD BRING OUT OF 2 MILLION SLAUGHTERED JEWISH CHILDREN OR THE VICIOUS ABUSE AND MURDER OF A SINGLE INNOCENT CHILD???

Mr Potato Head
January 25th, 2004, 09:39 PM
1Way - I don't think you can avoid the conclusion that God has manipulated evil men, nor is it necessary, to accomplish his purposes (the cross, the judgment on Israel, etc). But there is a huge difference between God causing EVERY act of evil and the biblical instances of God's using evil men in his judgment and at the cross. But I could be missing something.

1Way
January 25th, 2004, 09:59 PM
Mr Potato - Manipulate is a good term, it does not necessarily mean to cause or to be responsible for evil, but in this context and discussion, it may be somewhat unclear how one can manipulate/use evil and not be responsible for that evil. I like to focus on if God was responding to evil, or causing the evil. Naturally, God responds to evil and does not cause evil, and when He responds to evil, He always responds against it, even if He uses the effort of the enemy against the evil doer. You see, in the context of the righteous responding against the evil doer, you can even say use evil and no one would think that God caused or is responsible for it by His will, because the context says that God righteously responds against evil, even using their own efforts against them.

I like my judo example, where your opponent tries to punch you and you anticipate that effort and turn aside so that his body comes closer to your and you grab his arm and use his effort against him by flipping him over your hip and backside where he lands on his back wishing he had never done that. The evil doer in that example wanted to harm you, but you used his effort not to harm you, but to harm him instead. The evil intentions of the devil was to kill "and vanquish" Jesus, he did not want Him to be raised from the dead while simultane ously providing redemption for the world. If the devil had known that Christ was using the devil's own evil efforts to accomplish something totally different than what the devil intended on doing, he would never had done it. But God deceived the deceiver and we are victorious in Christ through His righteous work of redemption at the cross.

Mr Potato Head
January 25th, 2004, 10:03 PM
Mr Potato - Manipulate is a good term, it does not necessarily mean to cause or to be responsible for evil, but in this context and discussion, it may be somewhat unclear how one can manipulate/use evil and not be responsible for that evil. I like to focus on if God was responding to evil, or causing the evil. Naturally, God responds to evil and does not cause evil, and when He responds to evil, He always responds against it, even if He uses the effort of the enemy against the evil doer. You see, in the context of the righteous responding against the evil doer, you can even say use evil and no one would think that God caused or is responsible for it by His will, because the context says that God righteously responds against evil, even using their own efforts against them.

I like my judo example, where your opponent tries to punch you and you anticipate that effort and turn aside so that his body comes closer to your and you grab his arm and use his effort against him by flipping him over your hip and backside where he lands on his back wishing he had never done that. The evil doer in that example wanted to harm you, but you used his effort not to harm you, but to harm him instead. The evil intentions of the devil was to kill "and vanquish" Jesus, he did not want Him to be raised from the dead while simultane ously providing redemption for the world. If the devil had known that Christ was using the devil's own evil efforts to accomplish something totally different than what the devil intended on doing, he would never had done it. But God deceived the deceiver and we are victorious in Christ through His righteous work of redemption at the cross.


:thumb:

Z Man
January 25th, 2004, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man - I explained what you said and demonstrated that you did not understand. Yet you assume that you answered me even though you absolutely did not, instead you asked what I meant.
Dude, you suck at debating. You seriously need to grow up and stop playing this childish game. What the heck are you whining about anyways? You started this whole ordeal with a simple question that I have answered a long time ago. You asked me if I believed that God was in control of everything. I said yes. That's it! There's your freakin' answer! So stop crying about how I never answered your stupid question to begin with!!!

Mr Potato Head
January 25th, 2004, 10:56 PM
I sure hope God has a good reason for predestining this fight.
:think:

Z Man
January 25th, 2004, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

I sure hope God has a good reason for predestining this fight.
:think:
Why wouldn't He? Do you doubt His wisdom?

Mr Potato Head
January 25th, 2004, 11:00 PM
Not at all, I'm just doubting your perception of God's methods.

Z Man
January 25th, 2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

Not at all, I'm just doubting your perception of God's methods.
Well I could care less about that. As long as you know Christ as your Savior, what does it matter if you doubt my perceptions or not?

Mr Potato Head
January 25th, 2004, 11:03 PM
In comparison... not at all :thumb:

1Way
January 26th, 2004, 12:20 AM
Mr Potatoe Head - Now lets not be too hastey. If you cared about God and His truth, and how a false witness troubles others and does not set them free from error, like when someone like Z Man says that evil glorifies God, for the sake and benefit of "everyone", it should not just matter that you two are saved despite the evil presuppositions about God, because those teachings may harm himself and others, and many people do not place their faith in God precisely because of such evil and contradictory precepts.

But, in your own private discussion, that's ok, but in a public forum, the truth matters, and being saved is just the tip of the iceburg that may help to shipwreck others if we don't rid ourself of so many false and contradictory teachings.

Also, scripture teaches us to move beyond the elementary principles and press onwards thru sanctification growing in the Lord so that we might altogether help edify and grow the family of God. It always bothers me when people say, ya, but at least were saved, we can agree on that much. When I consider all the riches and joy that we are supposed to have, and a common faith, one united faith, the last thing I want to agree to is that we may have a handful of key essential truths so lets feel good about that much. The truth in reality on that score means that we disagree on just about everything you can think of, even the very nature of How God is! Yes, I am glad whenever anyone is saved, but in contrasting a few or a single bible agreement to a bible wide range full of disagreement and contractions, that picture is not a good one. Not that we humans should be expected to get it all right perfectly, but God knew are limitations when He expects us to have one united faith instead of one wildly contradictory and united faith. If the truth be told, Christianity is about 99 percent contradiction and confusion. I'd suggest that even within the same denomination or theological groupings, the unity of faith might average somewhere around 35% or so. We Christians are a culture that has swallowed the false notion that we must tolerate our overwhelming disunity as much as we tolerate our own interpersonal diversity and opinions on just about anything else, as though the bible is a venue for personal interpretation and style and preference. Christians probably have more unity about mathematics or science or sports or barbecuing than they do with theology and bible understanding.

God's word does not look favorably upon such arguably selfish concerns as, as long as you know Christ as your savior, what does the rest matter in comparison?

Z Man
January 26th, 2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by 1Way
Mr Potatoe Head - Now lets not be too hastey. If you cared about God and His truth, and how a false witness troubles others and does not set them free from error, like when someone like Z Man says that evil glorifies God, for the sake and benefit of "everyone"...
1Way,

If your going to ridicule and mis-quote me all day, then I do not want to dulge into a debate with you. Bearing false witness against your brother is a sin. You need to be more careful with what you say. If you would have read my posts carefully, you would have understood that I never said evil itself glorifies God. I simply said that He uses evil to get His point across; to display His glory to the world. Don't agree? The story of Pharoah and the Egyptians are a good place to start.

God's word does not look favorably upon such arguably selfish concerns as, as long as you know Christ as your savior, what does the rest matter in comparison?
We can argue all day long until we are blue in the face about predestination and God's sovereignty, but in the end, does it really matter? Of course not! The salvation of God is all that matters! That's the whole purpose for everything God has revealed to us through His Word; salvation! Is it a requirement to believe in the absolute sovereignty of God in order to get into heaven? Of course not! Is it a requirement to believe in free will in order to get into heaven? Of course not!

All this debating may help us understand God in our own way better, but it definitly will not allow God to "love us more" simply because we believe to be correct in our doctrine. He loves you just as much as He loves me, whether we believe in free will or not.

God_Is_Truth
January 26th, 2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Z Man
We can argue all day long until we are blue in the face about predestination and God's sovereignty, but in the end, does it really matter? Of course not! The salvation of God is all that matters! That's the whole purpose for everything God has revealed to us through His Word; salvation! Is it a requirement to believe in the absolute sovereignty of God in order to get into heaven? Of course not! Is it a requirement to believe in free will in order to get into heaven? Of course not!

All this debating may help us understand God in our own way better, but it definitly will not allow God to "love us more" simply because we believe to be correct in our doctrine. He loves you just as much as He loves me, whether we believe in free will or not.

Amen.

godrulz
January 26th, 2004, 11:12 AM
It is possible to win an argument and lose a soul (cultist), friend, or brother.

More heat (friction) is not better than more light.

Love one another as He loves us.

Rolf Ernst
January 26th, 2004, 12:05 PM
Potato Head and 1Way--I disagree with you fellows only on your use of "manipulate." Manipulate is what a puppeteer does with puppets. That would be a kind of encroachment against man's will which God doesn't do. Man's will may be impotent, often unable to perform that which they WOULD do because God frustrates their efforts (Ps 33:11,12), but in every matter, however much they may fail, men will their actions. So I think manipulation is not a good word to use.
Consider the king of Assyria, the rod of God's anger, the axe with which He hewed--throughout that chapter, it is apparent that the Assyrian is acting according to his own will and for his own motives. He therefore was not being manipulated. A better analogy (I think) to God giving people up is what takes place when a rancher releases a wild horse from a pen. The wild horse (as is the sinner) is hemmed in by the restraint placed around him, just as Satan was hemmed in against taking action against Job unless God allowed it; and God's allowance was always with restrictions which Satan had no power to overcome. THAT is God's governing of all things by which He fulfills all His purpose while disallowing ANYTHING which is contrary to that purpose. When the rancher releases the wild horse from the pen, no longer restraining it, the horse is not being manipulated by the rancher as the horse does according to the nature of a wild horse.
And if a rancher understands the nature of a wild horse and what it is likely to do, how much more God knows the hearts of men and what actions they will take if left to their own way.

1Way
January 26th, 2004, 07:55 PM
Z - You said
The point is, God uses evil for His glory. So what's the problem of Him using it through other people's lives? If He allowed the most imaginable evil ever to be committed against His Son, what's the big deal if He allows it in other people's lives? Your idea, which is now quoted fully, is basically a two part concept. 1) God controls and uses evil, and 2) God is glorified by evil, evil (is) for His glory.

All I did was refer to the one part. In so doing I do not misquote you, I did not even imply that I was quoting you. It's a free country if you put forth a multi part idea and someone accurately references the one part, there is no harm done. You said
If you would have read my posts carefully, you would have understood that I never said evil itself glorifies God. I simply said that He uses evil to get His point across; to display His glory to the world. Don't agree? The story of Pharoah and the Egyptians are a good place to start. If evil (itself) (is there really any other sort of evil other than evil itself?) does not glorify God, then your truth claim (God uses/controls evil for His glory) is false or else is inferring some other sort of evil, but I would not suspect even yourself to go around lying about such things. Stand by your words or stand corrected, make up your mind already. You have done nothing to alter your original statement of God's relationship to evil in that He gets glory from evil, plainly "God uses evil for His glory".

You may want to harp on the direction over which the glory is moving, is the glory coming from evil to God, or is it coming from evil to the world. Well, if God is pleased in His glory being shown to the world from evil, then surely He would be please if that glory was toward Himself. Of you you think that God's glory from goodness and God's glory from evil represent two different sorts of glory and only the inferior evil glory is directed to man to glorify God, and only the superior glory from good goes to God to glorify God.

Yes, Z Man, the truth matters, how we live in this life has eternal consequenses both for ourselves and for others. God is grieved when we sin, we can and do grieve the HS like when you blaspheme God by making Him responsible for and for getting glory from evil. God uses man to reach other men for God by preaching the gospel message and by demonstrating a changed life, and when we deliver the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power unto salvation, and we get it wrong by misrepresenting the object and person of our salvation, and when we misrepresent the way of salvation, which is not that God predestined individuals to salvation from the foundation of the world, and we say other false teachings like that God controls everything without exception, then the unbelieving world has a "good" reason to reject such beliefs on the bases that they are fundamentally false according to God and His goodness and righteousness and love and power, etc.

Some will be called the least and some will be called great in the kingdom of heaven, some will be accepted/rewarded as though escaping through the flames, and others will be accepted/rewarded as though God's firey judgement mostly honored their house of faith that was built with their life. It is not "all" about being saved as contrasted to my point that it matters deeply how we reprsent God, the levels of self centeredness in such remarks is rather remarkable. Godly agape love is not self concerned nearly as much as it is others concerned. God is our example, God died for us so that we don't have to pay that terrible price. And after Christ did that for you, can't you see that God wants you to be loving and willing to forgive and even be giving of yourself for others in return? I say that our accurate testimony about God and His ways are crucial in helping to win a dying world to Christ, including predestination and God's sovereignty, you say other than being saved, the rest doesn't matter. :nono:

1Way
January 26th, 2004, 08:40 PM
Rolf - Wow, that is a fast turnabout. :o Mr Potato Head, have you ever seen such a fast convert? :D

You said
Potato Head and 1Way--I disagree with you fellows only on your use of "manipulate." Manipulate is what a puppeteer does with puppets. That would be a kind of encroachment against man's will which God doesn't do. Man's will may be impotent, often unable to perform that which they WOULD do because God frustrates their efforts (Ps 33:11,12), but in every matter, however much they may fail, men will their actions. So I think manipulation is not a good word to use. Oh, hmmm. I think I see your point, but consider the puppet thing again for a moment. The puppets never do anything unless something complete outside of them causes them to do it. So any direction that the puppeteer gives to the puppets would be one of complete control. Now if complete control of something means to manipulate, then I would not know what complete control means. But I agree that the term to manipulate can mean to control, like when a potter manipulates the clay into some artwork, or whatever, again, he is actually controlling the clay, yet we also call that manipulation. So I guess it can sort of go both ways and the common uses do seem a bit confusing.

But do I hear you say correctly that man has free will? I agree that man's will is not nearly as potent and righteous and stable as God's but we still always do our will. So you believe that God does NOT violate man's free will. Good deal Rolf! And I thought you were on the other side of this debate, sorry for misunderstanding where you were coming from. You were really argueing harshly against me and some other free willer's here, come on now, watch the friendly fire :darwinsm: Maybe you confused our granting the opposition's arguments just long enough to argue against them as being our arguments or something. I am pro-free will too. It is ZMan and who is against that, not us. :eek:

I like your comment about God frustrating their efforts, do you like my judo example then, about God "responding" to evil, not causing or controlling evil like in judo. You have you and your opponent who is evil. He strikes a blow at you but you sidestep it and use his own effort and momentum against him by grabbing his arm and flipping him over your hip and backside and he lands on his backside wishing he had never tried that. You did not do cause nor control his evil intent or deed, but you did respond to it by opposing him and his evil intention and even used his own effort against him by your righteous self defense response which was not to harm you, the righteous one, but to oppose and harm him, the evil one. That way the evil intention and the evil effort are completely separated from you and your righteous response against the evil doer.

That cracks me up, I thought you were sort of wacky, ranting and raving about how do we rescue God from doing evil, and here you are on our side all this time. :o Welcome aboard shipmate, the battle, is over there. I just could not figure you out, I thought you were trying to use some strange sort of reverse psychology on us or something. LOL So just how free do you go with free will? How about the future, does God have all that locked down into one fated unalterable destiny, or do we free will beings truly represent an uncertain element such that God does not already know everything that will ever happen?

If you say the former, that is closed theism, even from God's perspective the future is locked into place and holds no uncertainty, from that perspective man experiences time in a different way and thinks that he has free will to do this or that, but the fact in reality is that they can never do anything but that which is according to that one fated destiny. If you say the latter, then you would be right, the future is open to options and man really do make free will choices. In this view, God take care of things not yet done by His power and His wise councle and if necessary, God repents and does not do what He said and thought He was going to do. (Jer 18 1-10 the potter and the clay, and Jonah 3:4&9or10 as a great example of Him doing just that.)

Most Christians fall somewhere inbetween, but I do not believe the truth in reality afford such dublicity, either the future holds at least some contingency/uncertainty, or it does not. Thus either the open view or the closed view is correct. There is no other options. LOL, someone watch over this guy, make sure he is aiming at the other side.

1Way
January 26th, 2004, 08:59 PM
godrulz - Wanting to subside hostilities is a good thing, but don't exchange being loving with a lack of heated friction the way you constantly do. The only way to keep your love from being sinful thru hypocrisy is by the heat of abhorance. Last I checked attibuting evil to God is a clear and serious evil, and further not repenting for such blasphemy is a rebellius sin of presumption too. But don't worry about me, I feel no need to contribute more fuel to the fire, light and heat both, not just light.

Lighten up on pushing your agenda of trying to be nicer than God, I wont do it, for the love of God already, I promise that I just wont do it. :thumb:

Mr Potato Head
January 26th, 2004, 09:02 PM
Mr Potatoe Head - Now lets not be too hastey. If you cared about God and His truth, and how a false witness troubles others and does not set them free from error, like when someone like Z Man says that evil glorifies God, for the sake and benefit of "everyone", it should not just matter that you two are saved despite the evil presuppositions about God, because those teachings may harm himself and others, and many people do not place their faith in God precisely because of such evil and contradictory precepts.

But, in your own private discussion, that's ok, but in a public forum, the truth matters, and being saved is just the tip of the iceburg that may help to shipwreck others if we don't rid ourself of so many false and contradictory teachings.

You got me there.

1Way
January 26th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Mr Potato Head - Thank you kindly. Chuckles, "you got me there." Ah, shucks, I caught me yet another Christian, I keep hoping to snag an unbeliever. :o
I bet Z Man and God is Truth and and and could use more of that brotherly kinship you graciously offer. Its too bad that the battle ground too often is more like soldiers afield at war, instead of players at soldier field. Your intent, and I'd say the same with godrulz as well, is not just error, it comes from a good heart hoping for good and even better things. Yet eternity and righteousness becken us to redeem the time, so we speak the truth in love, and in such a love that abhors evil, and in such a truth that does not violate His word.

Thanks for taking my remarks well.
In Christ,

Z Man
January 26th, 2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Z - You said Your idea, which is now quoted fully, is basically a two part concept. 1) God controls and uses evil, and 2) God is glorified by evil, evil (is) for His glory.

All I did was refer to the one part. In so doing I do not misquote you, I did not even imply that I was quoting you. It's a free country if you put forth a multi part idea and someone accurately references the one part, there is no harm done. You said If evil (itself) (is there really any other sort of evil other than evil itself?) does not glorify God, then your truth claim (God uses/controls evil for His glory) is false or else is inferring some other sort of evil, but I would not suspect even yourself to go around lying about such things. Stand by your words or stand corrected, make up your mind already. You have done nothing to alter your original statement of God's relationship to evil in that He gets glory from evil, plainly "God uses evil for His glory".

You may want to harp on the direction over which the glory is moving, is the glory coming from evil to God, or is it coming from evil to the world. Well, if God is pleased in His glory being shown to the world from evil, then surely He would be please if that glory was toward Himself. Of you you think that God's glory from goodness and God's glory from evil represent two different sorts of glory and only the inferior evil glory is directed to man to glorify God, and only the superior glory from good goes to God to glorify God.

Yes, Z Man, the truth matters, how we live in this life has eternal consequenses both for ourselves and for others. God is grieved when we sin, we can and do grieve the HS like when you blaspheme God by making Him responsible for and for getting glory from evil. God uses man to reach other men for God by preaching the gospel message and by demonstrating a changed life, and when we deliver the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power unto salvation, and we get it wrong by misrepresenting the object and person of our salvation, and when we misrepresent the way of salvation, which is not that God predestined individuals to salvation from the foundation of the world, and we say other false teachings like that God controls everything without exception, then the unbelieving world has a "good" reason to reject such beliefs on the bases that they are fundamentally false according to God and His goodness and righteousness and love and power, etc.

Some will be called the least and some will be called great in the kingdom of heaven, some will be accepted/rewarded as though escaping through the flames, and others will be accepted/rewarded as though God's firey judgement mostly honored their house of faith that was built with their life. It is not "all" about being saved as contrasted to my point that it matters deeply how we reprsent God, the levels of self centeredness in such remarks is rather remarkable. Godly agape love is not self concerned nearly as much as it is others concerned. God is our example, God died for us so that we don't have to pay that terrible price. And after Christ did that for you, can't you see that God wants you to be loving and willing to forgive and even be giving of yourself for others in return? I say that our accurate testimony about God and His ways are crucial in helping to win a dying world to Christ, including predestination and God's sovereignty, you say other than being saved, the rest doesn't matter. :nono:
Ok dude. Whatever tickles your fancy...

Rolf Ernst
January 27th, 2004, 12:01 PM
1 WAY--I am sure that there is a lot of "talking past one another" on this forum. Perhaps the more strongly we feel on certain points, the more strongly we need to exercise caution that we do not "talk past."
The reformed doctrine of man's will is that it is free, but there are two caveats to that.
FIRST, While Man ALWAYS has free will, his free will does not mean he always has the power to execute that will. How many times in a day do you alter your will?
You begin the day saying, I will do this and that today; but how often do you actually do precisely what you earlier intended?? Our will is impotent and unstable as water, but throughout every day, we are freely willing what we choose even when we have to go to plan "B" and plan "C."
Someone posted recently that they did not consider themselves having free will unless they also had the power to execute that will. They were adamant that if they were not free to both will and DO, they did not have free will at all and God was not being fair. Think about that for awhile--that is the power that only God Himself has. Only His will is immutable and omnipotent. If we demand that same power, we are bordering on the enormous offense against God spoken of in Isaiah 14--"I will be like the Most High..."
SECONDLY, The most dreadful caveat is that the free will of the unregenerate man is bound by sin so that he CANNOT properly will nor perform that which is acceptable to God. He still has a will, but it is bound by sin--"the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14; "...you are not able to listen to my word." Jn.8:43; "...because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me." Jn. 8:45; "...if I tell you the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear because you are not of God." Jn. 8:46, 47
Who is of God? He is of God who is born from above by the power of the Holy Spirit Who, like the wind, goes where He wills to go. We hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where He comes from or where He goes; so is everyone born of the Spirit (from John chapter three.) Until He comes and, by the same power He used in raising Christ from the dead, creates a new creature in Christ; until He regenerates; until He raises the spiritually dead, there is no spiritual life. Man's will in an unregenerate state is bound by sin. Christ came to open the prison to them that are bound (Isa. 61) and through the Holy Spirit, He raises the spiritually dead. His works of compassion are symbolic of what He does spiritually for unbelievers--the man who had never heard, the man who had never spoken, the man who had been blind from birth, those whom He healed of leprosy, a type of sin; those whom He raised from the dead. But just as those people were bound by their problem until Jesus came along, so the unbelieving are bound by sin until the blessed Holy Spirit comes and in power and grace and says, "Awake, oh sleeper! Arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light!"
If the unbeliever had power to do ANYTHING or to in ANYWAY recover himself, why didn't he? But that he didn't is made abundantly clear because when God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, the report of their condition was that "There is none that doeth good; no, not one. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one." (from Romans 3) BUT--then came Christ who raises the dead and calls those things which are not as though they were.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't remember Z Man saying that he did not believe in man's free will at least in this sense. So often we "talk past" and I have no doubt that am as guilty as anyone else. Have a good day.

1Way
January 27th, 2004, 01:53 PM
Rolf Ė You said
The reformed doctrine of man's will is that it is free, but there are two caveats to that.
FIRST, While Man ALWAYS has free will, his free will does not mean he always has the power to execute that will. How many times in a day do you alter your will? I doubt your view on several levels, but will grant your view for critical review.
But before I do, a remark about understanding prior to making judgments. I can tell that I differ with you about what free will means. The entire context over why we have the term ďfree willĒ is over the controversial issue of control, namely that God controls manís will or not. If there never was a controversy about who controls our will, then the will would never need to be refined as free.

We have three indispensable aspects involved with the two worded idea, free will. They are

Freedom
Control
Will

And to make it into one nice succinct package,

ďfree willĒ means that man controls his own will free from anyone elseís control.

Iím not confusing the nature of our will, that it has certain created limitations and qualities of existence, just dealing with manís will as it pertains to personal control.

Please elaborate if you feel that understanding of manís free will is somehow inadequate. For years I have found it to be right on the money.


Back to your quote, altering your will is a self directed self-controlling event and thus does not lend to your claim that man does not always have the power to execute his will. Secondly, I do not bend the issue of determining a free will by the more secondary issue of execution of the will, which on the face of it begs the issue of a number of things, including clearly defining the intentions verses the outcomes as well as the issue of effectiveness in a broad sense. I am not saying that control of the will is always demonstrated in the most effective way, and I think you would agree that there is difference between having control of a will, and demonstrating oneís will, especially when the fact is that there often are notorious competing elements in oneís will, struggling to become effectively demonstrated. Lets not confuse the ends with the means.

As to
SECONDLY, The most dreadful caveat is that the free will of the unregenerate man is bound by sin so that he CANNOT properly will nor perform that which is acceptable to God. He still has a will, but it is bound by sin--"the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14; "...you are not able to listen to my word." Jn.8:43; "...because I tell you the truth, you do not believe me." Jn. 8:45; "...if I tell you the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear because you are not of God." Jn. 8:46, 47 Not true, God demonstrates the opposite quite convincingly. The good Samaritan, those who are evil know to go good by treating their children with nutritious food as an argument to know how much more good God is that we are. Although that may be a reference to saved man, the evil in saved man is the same variety of evil in an unsaved man, God does not have different standards of righteousness, so the evil father can be a saved or an unsaved man, an evil man saved or not, is as God says, evil, yet still knows how to do good. Repentance leads to the conversion of the soul unto salvation, although that process is spiritual and internal, there seems to be a step-by-step progression that supports the notion that unsaved man does a good thing when he responds appropriately to the call of salvation.

Frankly, the whole depravity of man is as you say, a dreadful one, and serves to render a huge chunk of scriptureís teachings into being a meaningless void, and you should always beware when someone ďsmartĒ sounding effectively voids scripture of meaning. Namely, every teaching for man to seek God and to become saved is a demonstration of Godís expectation and understanding that man does indeed have the ability to do so. For man to not have the ability to do so would be on the same ridiculous order as a fool calling men everywhere to fly like rockets into the heavens and land on mars to receive his part in paradise! If you canít do that, then the call is utter nonsense and voids scripture in a dreadful and comprehensive fashion.

If unregenerate man is not free to respond to God in an acceptable way, then unregenerate man has no free will at all, evidently God controls their will so that they could never do anything acceptable to God. Donít do violence to Godís word, let it speak meaningfully and truthfully and authoritatively to you and may it direct your faith, and not you contradicting scripture.

Sorry for thinking you were on our side of the debate. I will not budge from these foundational issues, I like standing on the sure foundation firmly, but I am more than willing to stand the test of scrutiny, and to stand corrected wherever it is established that I am wrong according to Godís teaching, not manís.

Oh, as to your bible reference understanding that man, without exception, can not receive the things of God, that is a wrong interpretation, it is simply accurate that until you are for God, you are against Him. As already argued, unsaved man can and readily does many acceptable things to God. Donít overstep nor undermine Godís word.

(Friendly advice)
Lastly, your lack of presenting white space between so much text makes your post a difficult read. I think it is simply an issue of simple respect and selflessness to try to format your writing in such a way as to make itís reception less difficult. For example, I had to do a word search to find your second caveat because I did not need to read everything that you think supports your view if I already understand the point and have a reasonable response. The bible teaches an issue of escalation. Some things are far easier and some things are far more difficult for us to do. Like you personally evangelizing someone in another country is very difficult compared to evangelizing efforts locally. The easier it is to do a kind service, yet you do not do it, the more condemnable it is not to do it.

I hope your life is filled with such easy blessings like stepping aside to give others room if they are carrying a heavy load right passed you, or opening a door for someone else, or simply treating others with a kindhearted respectful greeting just to establish in any reasonable way possible the good intentions from within your heart. I just reviewed your last post and see that you do attempt to use paragraphs, so I am encouraged. All you needed to do is hit the return key one more time at each paragraph separation. Also, it might help to create your posts within a word processor or notepad of some sort, that way you may have a better view of your text formatting prior to posting, and lastly, you can always go back in and edit your post to make it more appealing to others. You also use all caps to help call out key info, so this is really a very small issue, and one easily corrected.

(Z Man)
Oh, as to Z Man, he said God controls everything, remember, thus manís will must be included in everything. I donít remember him excepting manís will. What do you say on that regard?

Have a true and meaningfully good day

Jerry Shugart
January 27th, 2004, 02:15 PM
Just a few words in regard to "free will".Of course man has "free will" in regard to things in the "moral sphere".If he follows the moral law and does not sin then he will "earn" eternal life (Ro.2:6,7).But if he sins,then he will "perish"(Ro.2:12).

At the time he sins he becomes spiritually dead.At that point no amount of "free will" can save him.He must be "born again" by the SpŪrit.And the only way that that happens is when he "believes" the gospel of salvation.And the act of "believing" is not dependent on the "will" of man,but instead depends on "evidence".

That is why the Scriptures reveal that the "born again" experience is not dependenyt on the "will of man":

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"(Jn.1:12,13).

Paul makes it plain that it the "will" of man is not involved:

"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy"(Ro.9:16).

One believes one thing or another based on the "evidence" that he has.And it is impossible for one to "will" himself to believe something that he does not believe is true according to the evidence that he has.

That is why Paul "reasoned" with the Jews in the synagogues using "evidence".The "evidence" he used were the OT Scriptures (Acts17:2).

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen"(Heb.11:1).

In His grace,--Jerry

Z Man
January 27th, 2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
We have three indispensable aspects involved with the two worded idea, free will. They are

Freedom
Control
Will

And to make it into one nice succinct package,

ďfree willĒ means that man controls his own will free from anyone elseís control.

Iím not confusing the nature of our will, that it has certain created limitations and qualities of existence, just dealing with manís will as it pertains to personal control.
1Way,

Man's will is to sin. He can do no good apart from God's grace and mercy. Because of that, the will of man is extremely limited by the bondage of sin. Scripture screams this to us, over and over. Paul stated that even though he knows Christ, his spirit is in constant battle with his flesh and his sinful will. What he wants to do, he doesn't do; and that which he wishes not to do, he does!

If man has absolute complete control over his will and can do good or bad, depending on his choices, why can't we live perfect lives?

Repentance leads to the conversion of the soul unto salvation, although that process is spiritual and internal, there seems to be a step-by-step progression that supports the notion that unsaved man does a good thing when he responds appropriately to the call of salvation.
Unsaved men cannot do a "good thing". The scriptures Rolf posted were packed with references to God stating Himself that there are no good people on earth who do "good" things, or who seek Him. NONE!

Romans 8:7-8
The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD.

Unsaved men, who are in the flesh, are uncapable of regenerating themselves to spiritual life. They cannot free themselves from the bondage of sin.

Namely, every teaching for man to seek God and to become saved is a demonstration of Godís expectation and understanding that man does indeed have the ability to do so.
No it's not. It's God way of showing us how depraved we really are. We are nothing apart from Him and can do no good.

For man to not have the ability to do so would be on the same ridiculous order as a fool calling men everywhere to fly like rockets into the heavens and land on mars to receive his part in paradise! If you canít do that, then the call is utter nonsense and voids scripture in a dreadful and comprehensive fashion.
The depravity of man is what makes God so glorious to us! The fact that we hate God and will not answer His call to repentance just goes to show how sinful and lowly we are, and how righteous and glorious and perfect our Heavenly Father truely is! When men humble themselves, God is uplifted and praised and glorified! That is the most important thing in life; what life is all about - the glorification of God.

If unregenerate man is not free to respond to God in an acceptable way, then unregenerate man has no free will at all, evidently God controls their will so that they could never do anything acceptable to God.
God doesn't hold people back from going to Him and repenting; our own will is what holds us back! God is the one who has to break us free from our sinful will for us to come to Him, and the fact that He does do this, despite our sinfulness, is the most awesome and humbling and loving and merciful act God could ever display!

Donít do violence to Godís word, let it speak meaningfully and truthfully and authoritatively to you and may it direct your faith, and not you contradicting scripture.
Likewise.

Oh, as to your bible reference understanding that man, without exception, can not receive the things of God, that is a wrong interpretation, it is simply accurate that until you are for God, you are against Him. As already argued, unsaved man can and readily does many acceptable things to God. Donít overstep nor undermine Godís word.
I just proved to you in scripture that those in the flesh cannot please God. Any "good acts" that an usaved person may do are not truely good in that they were not intended to glorify God. And even if you are saved, the good works that you do do which glorify God can only be done because God lives within us! He works through us that we may do good works that glorify Him throughout the world.

(Z Man)
Oh, as to Z Man, he said God controls everything, remember, thus manís will must be included in everything. I donít remember him excepting manís will. What do you say on that regard?
I can speak for myself. I already went over this earlier in this post, but I'll repeat myself, just in case. Man's will is limited in that it is enslaved by sin. God must affect our will if there is any hope for man to receive salvation. How else can God get people to love Him without affecting their "free will"? It can't be done...

1Way
January 27th, 2004, 05:56 PM
Z Man Ė You said
I can speak for myself. I already went over this earlier in this post, but I'll repeat myself, just in case. Man's will is limited in that it is enslaved by sin. God must affect our will if there is any hope for man to receive salvation. How else can God get people to love Him without affecting their "free will"? It can't be done... Spoken like a true open theist, corporate predestinarian. Bravo!

I know you can and do speak for yourself, I wasnít speaking for you, I was responding to someone else about what I had said about you. Also, I affirmed that you can speak for yourself by saying, you said, ... demonstrating that you can and do speak for yourself. It is a free country right, this is a public forum right, I can ďreferĒ to something you said without it being a problem.

Speaking ďaboutĒ you, speaking ďforĒ you, these must be very difficult concepts if you confuse them so easily. Joke, just kidding, we all can see that you twist things around so that you can make personal attacks even over superfluous issues, i.e. your temper gets the best of you. If I go to the dictionary, are you sure I will not find you there listed under ill will?

(?)
After reading your entire post Iím left wondering, didnít I represent my arguments along with my points(?) Iím thinking especially of those arguments, which came directly from the bible?

Unless all you want to do is monologue, and play the claim game, one of your main goals should be to demonstrate why ďmy argumentsĒ are wrong, not just why you think you are right on this topic. By the mentality of promoting oneís own sense of being in the right, all parties stand to loose the benefit of objectively seeking the truth of the matter.

You may not want to deal with my views, but, no one will be convinced you are right ďabout my views being wrongĒ if you donít

1) specifically address my points along with their naturally connected support arguments
2) make counter arguments against mine that
2a) show an accurate understanding of what I am arguing
2b) show some logical fallacy or some other error in the expressed train of thought


This is a public service announcement


Friends donít let friends run around the truth

Respect and understand the truth

Donít violate or neglect the context


Moral support for this public announcement was provided by the campaign for putting truth back into Christianity


If need be, Iíll re-address my points and support arguments one doable step at a time so that we can keep a better focus, or Iíll simply await a direct response to my arguments and points. I just donít want anyone to be deluded into thinking that just because you quoted me that you answered me let alone attacked/refuted my position.

Your first quote and response is a perfect example of the obfuscation I am referring to where you did not even deal with what I said. I appreciate your question at the end, but although that is pretty much on topic, it does not address my point and argument for my point about establishing what free will actually is before arguing if we have free will or not. But, Iíll show you my graciousness and good will and treat you like I wish you would treat me. The answer to your question is: Man does not have absolute control over his will, he is the only person controlling his will. There is a difference. But that is not the main issue. Why doesnít free will man live perfect lives? Because of sin, sin is part of our nature, so I repeat my caution, lets not confuse this to be a discussion about the nature of our will or our being, itís about manís will, and control, is every person free to control their will or do others (or anything outside of their own self) control it. Also, even if we could live the perfect life, that would have no barring on this discussion, this is not about ability, itís about control and responsibility.

Now, everyone, please be honest and tell me if my response was direct and fitting to his question. I quoted it, addressed it in several ways and demonstrated why it is incorrect or off base. That does not mean Iím right, nor does that mean the issue is resolved, but it does mean that I answered his question and did not meaningfully neglect it and go off into what I think is right despite his thinking.

For starters, please respond to the point and arguments in your first quote in your last post to me.

LightSon
January 27th, 2004, 06:36 PM
1Way,
Is driving a truck your first pick of jobs?
To each his own. Driving truck is an honorable task and I am sure it has its own satisfaction and enjoyment.

But in terms of ability, it seems that you are being misapplied, if you don't mind me saying so. :)

Z Man
January 27th, 2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Is Christian debate more of a monologue or point counter-point apologetic


Z Man Ė You said Spoken like a true open theist, corporate predestinarian. Bravo!

I know you can and do speak for yourself, I wasnít speaking for you, I was responding to someone else about what I had said about you. Also, I affirmed that you can speak for yourself by saying, you said, ... demonstrating that you can and do speak for yourself. It is a free country right, this is a public forum right, I can ďreferĒ to something you said without it being a problem.

Speaking ďaboutĒ you, speaking ďforĒ you, these must be very difficult concepts if you confuse them so easily. Joke, just kidding, we all can see that you twist things around so that you can make personal attacks even over superfluous issues, i.e. your temper gets the best of you. If I go to the dictionary, are you sure I will not find you there listed under ill will?

(?)
After reading your entire post Iím left wondering, didnít I represent my arguments along with my points(?) Iím thinking especially of those arguments, which came directly from the bible?

Unless all you want to do is monologue, and play the claim game, one of your main goals should be to demonstrate why ďmy argumentsĒ are wrong, not just why you think you are right on this topic. By the mentality of promoting oneís own sense of being in the right, all parties stand to loose the benefit of objectively seeking the truth of the matter.

You may not want to deal with my views, but, no one will be convinced you are right ďabout my views being wrongĒ if you donít

1) specifically address my points along with their naturally connected support arguments
2) make counter arguments against mine that
2a) show an accurate understanding of what I am arguing
2b) show some logical fallacy or some other error in the expressed train of thought


This is a public service announcement


Friends donít let friends run around the truth

Respect and understand the truth

Donít violate or neglect the context


Moral support for this public announcement was provided by the campaign for putting truth back into Christianity


If need be, Iíll re-address my points and support arguments one doable step at a time so that we can keep a better focus, or Iíll simply await a direct response to my arguments and points. I just donít want anyone to be deluded into thinking that just because you quoted me that you answered me let alone attacked/refuted my position.

Your first quote and response is a perfect example of the obfuscation I am referring to where you did not even deal with what I said. I appreciate your question at the end, but although that is pretty much on topic, it does not address my point and argument for my point about establishing what free will actually is before arguing if we have free will or not. But, Iíll show you my graciousness and good will and treat you like I wish you would treat me. The answer to your question is: Man does not have absolute control over his will, he is the only person controlling his will. There is a difference. But that is not the main issue. Why doesnít free will man live perfect lives? Because of sin, sin is part of our nature, so I repeat my caution, lets not confuse this to be a discussion about the nature of our will or our being, itís about manís will, and control, is every person free to control their will or do others (or anything outside of their own self) control it. Also, even if we could live the perfect life, that would have no barring on this discussion, this is not about ability, itís about control and responsibility.

Now, everyone, please be honest and tell me if my response was direct and fitting to his question. I quoted it, addressed it in several ways and demonstrated why it is incorrect or off base. That does not mean Iím right, nor does that mean the issue is resolved, but it does mean that I answered his question and did not meaningfully neglect it and go off into what I think is right despite his thinking.

For starters, please respond to the point and arguments in your first quote in your last post to me.
:kookoo:

When you are ready to have a mature debate with me, let me know. Otherwise, this isn't going to go anywhere. You seem to be soooooo far out in left field that it's not even funny. Are you even in the right thread? All you do is whine about how I don't respond to your posts, when I quoted and commented on everything you said! I objected to your views, gave scripture to prove I was right and that you are horribly wrong, and all you can do is continually post, "Your wrong, I'm right; just read my posts". That's lame dude. All you did in that last post was address one simple question I came up with, which, by the way, wasn't even all that important! You did not address the main issue of my post!

Snap out of it and come back to earth. When you do, I'll be ready to debate with you...

1Way
January 27th, 2004, 11:30 PM
LightSon Ė Well bless your sole. :darwinsm: I donít mind at all. You should have heard some of the conversations I had with truckers on the cb, Iím not nearly your average driver and I sure made a lot of heads spin and gave a lot of hot heads and liberalís and heathen some new food for thought.

If you think this arena is a tough crowd, you should try being a conservative Christian, right winger, not nicer than God, evangelical, intellectual, philosophical, computer GPS mapping and voice recognition savvy, homophobic, gum chewer instead of cigarette smoker, bible thumping, extreme minority (strange) theology sharing, pro-death penalty, anti-choice, water not coffee drinking, professional truck driver, who doesnít have much of a social life and who wants to bless others with the truth that can set them free. Talk about a recipe for disaster. !!! They are monsters out there.

But the more I stuck with it, the more I sharpened my tactics and towards the end I was getting as much as a 5 - 10% positive feedback ratio. :D Half of those positive results were not very stimulating conversations, some drivers just want to share their problems with someone who cares and such. Most though, theyíd like to punch me out or flatten my tires, thereís a lot of cb Rambos and cd black belts though, they act tough as nails hiding behind that microphone, just to try to bully the Christians and the concervatives off the air. If you arenít talking about sex or booze or woman or making bare reports, or sex, theyíd trash talk you all day long if they thought they could silence the Christian. And I was never one to hog the mic either, I would speak long enough to try to get a reasonable discussion going and then move to another channel.

In a year and a half, I bet you I didnít have much over 1 1/2 dozen redemptive discussions, compared to daily attempts to make righteous discussions.

Iíd love to do something different, but money is an issue, I went to collage and created by own personalized national debt program, but driving pays fairly good, also for most white collar jobs, I have a skeleton in my closet (a felony) which often makes it difficult for me to get a decent job, and my age has caught up with me so many factory jobs are less appealing. For me, making a living in this life is more like learning to accept failure and debt. But Iím always open for options and opportunities, but the phrase the futureís so bright, I gotta ware shades, does not seem to apply.

Poor Z Man, he canít accept constructive criticism nor learn that obfuscation will get him nowhere. I wonder if I could repost my points and see if heíll respond to them directly in a point counter point way this time. (?) By his attitude, heís be the last person Iíd expect to be objective and intellectually honest, other than someone like smaller, and Freak, I guess.

Z Man
January 27th, 2004, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
Poor Z Man, he canít accept constructive criticism nor learn that obfuscation will get him nowhere. I wonder if I could repost my points and see if heíll respond to them directly in a point counter point way this time. (?)
I don't know if you can actually read or not, or if you have someone else doing the reading for you, because I've already responded to your posts.

Telling someone they are wrong simply because you believe to be right is not constructive criticism.

By his attitude, heís be the last person Iíd expect to be objective and intellectually honest, other than someone like smaller, and Freak, I guess.
What attitude? I would love to debate with you, but you are definitly not cooperating at all here! I answer your questions and make my points (with scripture I might add), but you keep stating that I'm wrong and have not answered your questions or discussed your topics! Seriously, I have no clue as to how you think. You baffle me in regards to your sporadic nonsense and whining.

Also, the only person with an attitude around here is you! YThe attitude that you possess towards me is of one in which you hold yourself at a higher spiritual and intellectual level than me, and frankly, I'm sick of it...

Z Man
January 27th, 2004, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
...professional truck driver, who doesnít have much of a social life...
Oh.... Well then, that explains everything! :D

godrulz
January 28th, 2004, 12:47 AM
1Way: I am a miserable member of the debt club. I pray for financial freedom for both of us. Jehovah Jireh, My Provider...

Do you have any awareness or involvement with ? truckers for Christ or whatever the chaplain ministry at truck stops is called?

1Way
January 28th, 2004, 02:57 PM
Oh, ya, I try to minister the truth to ministers whenever I can.

They have a few different organizations at different locations. But unfortunately they are a great example of some of the worst in Christianity concerning being faithful to the truth about God and His word. However, since they are more of a layperson common man street level sort of operation, they are a bit more humble in their theology and such, they "sometimes" have a bit more of a teachable spirit despite the tremendous amount of false teachings. Don't get me wrong, I think they are wonderful, but false teachings are still destructive.

I've got this one guy's phone number from close to St Paul MN who is interested in the Plot for example. We had a great talk and I will have to get back in touch with him sometime.

I have several truck drivers phone numbers that I need to follow up with also. People need to know the truth that can set them free. One guy is from Bosnia where his parents were both killed in their home! He was sent to go into town to get cigarettes and when he came back the house and everything was demolished. The UN ended up sending him to Germany I think and he has a mix of Christianity and Moslem background. He was tortured by neo Nazis where they tied him up and cut him and left him for dead for three days until the police finally found him. He may be getting married soon and we had a really good conversation. I told him some things that I learned about the Islamic faith about the Koran that he was surprised to hear. And he seemed interested in my views about Christianity.

Another guy was a wild case, he swallowed the whale of a lie from that book series, conversations with God. Itís a terrible deal of subjectivism and sexual immorality and a denial of right and wrong. I sort of castigated him over the cb, and we talked for hours and even pulled over and had some coffee and hot apple cider. It was fun meeting him, but at one point, I had to tell him the truth in love, that he is a moral moron. He defended Hitler and murder, or at least used them as examples that he could not say was wrong, because for Hitler, it was right, so it was right for him. I believe that he never ran into anyone like me before because he just could not stop making himself look like a complete idiot. I kept telling him, ok, so for you, if someone came into your home and murdered your wife, you would not prefer that to happen, but you would not condemn nor say it was wrong to do that, because the murderer was simply doing what he wanted to do and thought was right to do. I said, so for you to say that the murder was wrong, would be on the same order as you saying, that you like to eat hamburgers better than hotdogs, itís just your own personal preference, you can not even say that murder is wrong? And he would say nope, I canít say that anything is wrong, who am I to judge and all that nicer than God crap. He was a trip, a Canadian, and we left on fairly good terms despite our disagreements, but I donít give him much hope for recovery, he thinks that book series saved his marriage, and they are probably swimming in a cesspool of sexual immorality because of a few things he almost said and because of the teachings from that book series promoting playful experimentation with sex and that nothing is wrong, just do what you feel like doing.

:darwinsm: So, does that answer your question. :o

Although I appreciate the good will, Iím sorry your respect for me was affirmed the way it was, you are a tough cookie to crumble, but, I will not be nicer than God, not even for you, in fact especially for you, I will be non-hypocritical and truthful with my love. Godliness would have it no other way.
:sozo2:
:help:
:)

Z Man
January 28th, 2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
Another guy was a wild case, he swallowed the whale of a lie from that book series, conversations with God....

...It was fun meeting him, but at one point, I had to tell him the truth in love, that he is a moral moron....

...I believe that he never ran into anyone like me before because he just could not stop making himself look like a complete idiot...

...He was a trip, a Canadian, and we left on fairly good terms despite our disagreements, but I donít give him much hope for recovery...
You have a serious spiritual ego problem. Everyone is an idiot except you....

:down::rolleyes:

Mr Potato Head
January 28th, 2004, 09:12 PM
You have a serious spiritual ego problem. Everyone is an idiot except you....

Would you say that someone who thinks Hitler was not wrong is not an idiot??? Maybe not since it's all according to plan...

Z Man
January 28th, 2004, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

Would you say that someone who thinks Hitler was not wrong is not an idiot??? Maybe not since it's all according to plan...
1Way didn't say he was an idiot because he believed Hitler was right. Noooooo...1Way said:

Originally posted by 1Way
I believe that he never ran into anyone like me before because he just could not stop making himself look like a complete idiot...
Notice that 1Way stated that the guy had never met anyone like himself before.....oooOOOOoooohhhhh...

Basically, because the guy was not like 1Way, or possessed 1Way's spiritual maturity or knowledge, 1Way looks down upon him and calls him a complete idiot...

:rolleyes:

1Way
January 29th, 2004, 01:01 AM
Thanks Mr Potato Head, Z Man is being himself again so go figure.

Z Man - No, everyone is not a moron, your personality and role model is not yet that enduring, but give it some time.

The guy said that there is no such thing as right and wrong, itís all about what you prefer to do. He even defended Hitler and all murder that ever happened by saying that we can not condemn nor judge them, in fact, he told me that Hitler experienced his own paradise or heaven, since what Hitler did satisfied the longing of his soul, he accomplished more paradise or heaven on earth than many so called good people.

I donít know about you, well, yes I do, but you are of a different sort, anyway, that is top grade immorality and the direction is leading people to the pit and not to God. That is why I know that teaching is damnable, not because it does not reflect me.

As to my comment about the guy not running into anyone like me before, and him being an idiot, was because of his repeated failing and ungodly unrighteous and contradictory remarks and arguments. I told him that if someone raped and murdered his wife, wouldnít you be enraged because of the shedding of innocent blood, especially your own family? And he did not stand corrected, he would not condemn nor condone anyone for doing anything, the only thing he could muster as far as a personal retort would be that he would not do that himself (murder, rape), because for him, he thinks itís wrong to do that.

When I repeatedly showed him the lack of moral grounding (understatement) he was displaying by demonstrating that his opposition to his wife or family being raped and murdered was on the same order as me saying, ya, perhaps, but I like the color red better than the color blue, that is MY preference. Who cares if you like chocolate better than vanilla, no one cares about your personal preferences. You can never establish ANY moral footing on the grounds of a personal preference, and so he has utterly eliminated himself from any moral authority about what is right or wrong, he even said that he believes that he has no business judging anyone.

Actually, at first he said that no one has any business judging anyone, and so I had to correct him on that contradiction, because if I am judging someone, then he is judging against me for judging someone, yet he says no one should judge anyone(!), and thus he would be the hypocrite for saying that, so then he did stand corrected on that point and said that he should have said that he just thinks that it is wrong for him to judge others, and that he would prefer it if others did not judge others but if they did, then whatever, he had no judgment for or against.

I had to correct that sort of simple hypocrisy in him probably a dozen times that night, it was so funny watching him try to sound morally correct about Michael Jackson and terrorism, heíd start speaking the truth from inside his heart as though right and wrong actually exist (I think the lies of subjectivism only appeal to him in a superficial way, because he kept violating his own subjective stated beliefs) and Iíd look at him sideways and correct him until finally all I had to do was look at him sideways and he would correct himself (yet another bunch of times). Obviously he had never dealt with anyone like me before otherwise he would not have acted the fool and hypocrite and contradict himself pretty much during the entire (4 hour?) conversation about his own beliefs!

He relegated himself into being a full grown adult moral moron, because the last I check, moron has nothing authoritative to say on a topic also. He is probably in his early 30ís and has finally matured to the point where he could not condemn rape, murder or the holocaust in any way. Even a babe in Christ could condemn that much. He was a nice likable guy, and he took all my comments well, we exchanged phone numbers and will re-establish contact hopefully soon.


You do believe in absolutes, donít you Mr Z? and that it is absolutely wrong to speak neutrally and un-righteously about wickedness, and that we should judge and condemn others who mass murder for example?


Am 5:15 Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts Will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.

Mal 2:17 You have wearied the LORD with your words; Yet you say, "In what way have we wearied Him?" In that you say, "Everyone who does evil Is good in the sight of the LORD, And He delights in them," Or, "Where is the God of justice?"

see signature below

Z Man
January 29th, 2004, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by 1Way
Z Man - No, everyone is not a moron, your personality and role model is not yet that enduring, but give it some time.
My personality and role model is not yet enduring??? Do you think you know what's best for me 1Way? You think you can look down upon me because my personality is not like yours?

:darwinsm:

My personality is great! It's exactly how God made me and I would have it no other way! I don't give a crap what you think about my personality, or if you think it's as "righteous" and "holy" as yours! I'd rather die than to be anything like you! I'm ZMAN, a unique individual whom God loves and has saved and is using me in His own ways, apart from anyone else's desires.

The type of attitude you possess really chaps my hide, especially among other Christians. :mad:

You do believe in absolutes, donít you Mr Z? and that it is absolutely wrong to speak neutrally and un-righteously about wickedness, and that we should judge and condemn others who mass murder for example?
What Christian doesn't believe in absolutes? That's a stupid question to be asking me.

godrulz
January 29th, 2004, 10:55 AM
I believe 'Conversations with God' was channelled like a demonically inspired spirit medium. It shows our lack of discernment that Christian bookstores carried it and it made our best-selling lists?!

Freak
January 29th, 2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Z Man to 1way

The type of attitude you possess really chaps my hide, especially among other Christians. :mad:
You're right on about 1way. Pathetic. :down:

1Way
January 29th, 2004, 08:00 PM
Z Ė You said
What Christian doesn't believe in absolutes? That's a stupid question to be asking me. If you recall, it was you who did not understand the nature of how it was that I was charging that moral moron, as being a moron. After you reading my explanation of the guys beliefs on morality, instead of you rightly understanding all that about the extreme foolishness of personal subjectivism, instead you thought I was saying that he was a moron because he was not like me.

Maybe you two are related?

Also, Z, maybe your personal subjectivist thoughts of constantly comparing me and you and other Christians does not seem exceedingly stupid especially when considering what we are talking about, but to me I think you should reconsider your crap statements and stand more on the objective truth from Godís word. Hereís an example of why your view is evil at itís core. You said
My personality is great! It's exactly how God made me and I would have it no other way! I don't give a crap what you think about my personality, or if you think it's as "righteous" and "holy" as yours! I'd rather die than to be anything like you! I'm ZMAN, a unique individual whom God loves and has saved and is using me in His own ways, apart from anyone else's desires. Your so pleased with fatalism, yet the mass murderer can say the exact same foolishness, and since he could not possibly stop from doing what he does in fact do, then why not just be happy about it all, in fact, why not just brag about it as it all being by Godís glorious design and will. You profane God in the highest degree, itís no wonder you do not lend Christ like food for thought and a heart of brotherly love and such, you can be the most asinine pervert and just say, itís all good, God made me this way. Not that youíve been the most asinine pervert by any stretch, who knows though, give it time.

(Correction)
Opps, I meant ďendearingĒ, not enduring in my previous post. Well actually, it was probably a subconscious transposition of sorts, your comment saying ďto 1Way everyone is a moronĒ, is an accurate snapshot of the causticly revolting things you bring forth from the treasury of vomit of your inner man. And since we all have to ďendureĒ such things if we are to continue a discussion with you, an ďendearingĒ moronic personality would have to be seriously ďenduredĒ to have any chance of it rubbing off on everyone else. So because of the disgusting nature of the Z, my error is somewhat understandable.

Oh my, isnít this ,,, what we all want and desire in our relationships

1Way
January 29th, 2004, 08:10 PM
Godrulz Ė You said
I believe 'Conversations with God' was channelled like a demonically inspired spirit medium. It shows our lack of discernment that Christian bookstores carried it and it made our best-selling lists?! I believe it was a secularly written spiritual fraud, demons need not apply. I blame the author for his evil, and to suggest that demon possession happens today is dubious, ,,, unless of course your talking about Michelle Jackson or something like that. Good point about it making a best sellers list on the probable guise of it being a Christian book or at least a book about the Christian God. I wonder if that was via Christian best selling markets or otherwise? From my understanding, virtually everything Christian has been bought up by secular businesses, especially music and book publishers. One "might" think that a purposeful focus on God's word instead of man's word would be the best solution.

Thanks for presenting a contextually respectful and thoughtful comment.

Z Man
January 29th, 2004, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Z Ė You said If you recall, it was you who did not understand the nature of how it was that I was charging that moral moron, as being a moron. After you reading my explanation of the guys beliefs on morality, instead of you rightly understanding all that about the extreme foolishness of personal subjectivism, instead you thought I was saying that he was a moron because he was not like me.

Maybe you two are related?

Also, Z, maybe your personal subjectivist thoughts of constantly comparing me and you and other Christians does not seem exceedingly stupid especially when considering what we are talking about, but to me I think you should reconsider your crap statements and stand more on the objective truth from Godís word. Hereís an example of why your view is evil at itís core. You said Your so pleased with fatalism, yet the mass murderer can say the exact same foolishness, and since he could not possibly stop from doing what he does in fact do, then why not just be happy about it all, in fact, why not just brag about it as it all being by Godís glorious design and will. You profane God in the highest degree, itís no wonder you do not lend Christ like food for thought and a heart of brotherly love and such, you can be the most asinine pervert and just say, itís all good, God made me this way. Not that youíve been the most asinine pervert by any stretch, who knows though, give it time.

(Correction)
Opps, I meant ďendearingĒ, not enduring in my previous post. Well actually, it was probably a subconscious transposition of sorts, your comment saying ďto 1Way everyone is a moronĒ, is an accurate snapshot of the causticly revolting things you bring forth from the treasury of vomit of your inner man. And since we all have to ďendureĒ such things if we are to continue a discussion with you, an ďendearingĒ moronic personality would have to be seriously ďenduredĒ to have any chance of it rubbing off on everyone else. So because of the disgusting nature of the Z, my error is somewhat understandable.

Oh my, isnít this ,,, what we all want and desire in our relationships
You don't want to debate; you want to attack and insult anyone who holds a different view than you. I don't want to play your game. I'd rather have a mature debate with a reasonable christian, and you definitly do not meet that criteria.

This is the second time I have had to say this to you: When you grow up and are ready to debate, I'll be waiting...

Freak
January 30th, 2004, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by Z Man to 1Way

You don't want to debate; you want to attack and insult anyone who holds a different view than you. I don't want to play your game. I'd rather have a mature debate with a reasonable christian, and you definitly do not meet that criteria. I'm telling you...more & more believers in Christ are seeing that this guy is simply a simpleton who lacks spiritual understanding...


This is the second time I have had to say this to you: When you grow up and are ready to debate, I'll be waiting... :crackup:

1Way
January 30th, 2004, 04:35 AM
The truth matters.

For all who just read Z Man's post, and especially without him accurately copying my post, you might be confused as to what honestly is going on. The truth is that I do want to debate these issues but I keep having to defend Z Man's personal attacks which he seems to want to swim in them, instead of deal with the issue at hand. Please review the focus that Z Man has on promoting his ill will instead of dealing with Christian and bible issues. The quotes are from his post 153 which was in response to my post which was in response to his. Notice the ONLY thing he does is try to defend his false personal attacks, this issue is from Z Man, I did not even address my post to him about the truckers who I've been trying to reach for the Lord. Yet Now Z Man wants to blame me for avoiding the debate/discussion. What a deal he is.


(It's just a repost, of my post 156 that Z Man neglected to fill in the quotes, and to demonstrate that he is the one who is exhasberate the situation of constantly throwing tangents at me, wild tangents of gross preportions.)


Z Ė You said
What Christian doesn't believe in absolutes? That's a stupid question to be asking me. If you recall, it was you who did not understand the nature of how it was that I was charging that moral moron, as being a moron. After you reading my explanation of the guys beliefs on morality, instead of you rightly understanding all that about the extreme foolishness of personal subjectivism, instead you thought I was saying that he was a moron because he was not like me.

Maybe you two are related?

Also, Z, maybe your personal subjectivist thoughts of constantly comparing me and you and other Christians does not seem exceedingly stupid especially when considering what we are talking about, but to me I think you should reconsider your crap statements and stand more on the objective truth from Godís word. Hereís an example of why your view is evil at itís core. You said
My personality is great! It's exactly how God made me and I would have it no other way! I don't give a crap what you think about my personality, or if you think it's as "righteous" and "holy" as yours! I'd rather die than to be anything like you! I'm ZMAN, a unique individual whom God loves and has saved and is using me in His own ways, apart from anyone else's desires. Your so pleased with fatalism, yet the mass murderer can say the exact same foolishness, and since he could not possibly stop from doing what he does in fact do, then why not just be happy about it all, in fact, why not just brag about it as it all being by Godís glorious design and will. You profane God in the highest degree, itís no wonder you do not lend Christ like food for thought and a heart of brotherly love and such, you can be the most asinine pervert and just say, itís all good, God made me this way. Not that youíve been the most asinine pervert by any stretch, who knows though, give it time.

(Correction)
Opps, I meant ďendearingĒ, not enduring in my previous post. Well actually, it was probably a subconscious transposition of sorts, your comment saying ďto 1Way everyone is a moronĒ, is an accurate snapshot of the causticly revolting things you bring forth from the treasury of vomit of your inner man. And since we all have to ďendureĒ such things if we are to continue a discussion with you, an ďendearingĒ moronic personality would have to be seriously ďenduredĒ to have any chance of it rubbing off on everyone else. So because of the disgusting nature of the Z, my error is somewhat understandable.

Oh my, isnít this ,,, what we all want and desire in our relationships

godrulz
January 30th, 2004, 10:19 AM
It is not surprising that everyone gets defensive because we are attacking each other's credibility, motives, and intelligence. There is a mature way to disagree or persuade.

Z Man
January 30th, 2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by godrulz
It is not surprising that everyone gets defensive because we are attacking each other's credibility, motives, and intelligence. There is a mature way to disagree or persuade.
Yeah 1Way, there is a mature way to disagree or persuade, or debate.

I thought you wanted to discuss freewill, and so I dived into the conversation answering the questions you came up with. But soon after, everything went down hill. You began ignoring my answers and rejected the notion of commenting on them, other than to insult me and say I was wrong. You called this constructive criticism and acted in a way which lead other's who read this thread to believe that I am in a great need of learning about God and the bible. That's ludicris! I may know more than you do about theology! But who cares! The point is, you look down upon me and you looked down upon those truckers who disagreed with you and you glorify yourself as being absolutely, 100% correct in the ways of Christian theology and doctrine.

Ridiculing me and believing me to be ignorant is immature and I refuse to debate with you unless you deceide you can do it in a mature manner. Quit acting as if your the smartest human being in the world and that God has told you everything there is to know about Him and the Bible, because in all reality, you don't know squat. Don't be so freakin' close-minded either, because we can both learn a lot from each other through debate and meticulous bible study. But that won't ever happen if you stick your nose up in the air and believe that no one can teach you anything about God...

godrulz
January 30th, 2004, 01:28 PM
One must be teachable to be a teacher. It is not surprising that we have strong convictions based on our perception of truth. I have revised much of my thinking as I get new light, but I do tend to be dogmatic when I feel I understand an issue. We are not likely experts or correct in all areas.

Turbo
January 30th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Yeah 1Way, there is a mature way to disagree or persuade, or debate.

I thought you wanted to discuss freewill, and so I dived into the conversation answering the questions you came up with. But soon after, everything went down hill. You began ignoring my answers and rejected the notion of commenting on them, other than to insult me and say I was wrong. You called this constructive criticism and acted in a way which lead other's who read this thread to believe that I am in a great need of learning about God and the bible. That's ludicris!...

Ridiculing me and believing me to be ignorant is immature and I refuse to debate with you unless you deceide you can do it in a mature manner. Quit acting as if your the smartest human being in the world and that God has told you everything there is to know about Him and the Bible, because in all reality, you don't know squat. Don't be so freakin' close-minded either, because we can both learn a lot from each other through debate and meticulous bible study. But that won't ever happen if you stick your nose up in the air and believe that no one can teach you anything about God... Z Man,

I haven't been keeping up with this thread lately and I haven't read the exchange between you and 1Way. I just read this post I have quoted.

While you were griping about how rude it was for 1Way to act like/believe that you are ignorant of the Bible, you told him, "you don't know squat" about the Bible.

Others might be more inclined to consider your advice if you followed it yourself.

Z Man
January 30th, 2004, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Z Man,

I haven't been keeping up with this thread lately and I haven't read the exchange between you and 1Way. I just read this post I have quoted.

While you were griping about how rude it was for 1Way to act like/believe that you are ignorant of the Bible, you told him, "you don't know squat" about the Bible.

Others might be more inclined to consider your advice if you followed it yourself.
The assumption is that I too do not know squat, which is the truth. There is so much more to learn about God and the Bible. Everytime it's read and studied, something new always pops up. Everytime one christian fellowships with another, ideas are viewed and tested by the Word of God for validity and truth. This is a learning process.

However, 1Way refuses to learn. He thinks he knows all there is to theology...

Freak
January 30th, 2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Z Man,

I haven't been keeping up with this thread lately and I haven't read the exchange between you and 1Way. I just read this post I have quoted.

While you were griping about how rude it was for 1Way to act like/believe that you are ignorant of the Bible, you told him, "you don't know squat" about the Bible.

Others might be more inclined to consider your advice if you followed it yourself. Turbo, Zman, Godrulz, Light, and others have seen firsthand the arrogrance of this 1way character. Why can't you? :rolleyes:

1Way
January 31st, 2004, 07:51 AM
Maybe Z Man or Rolf or Jobeth or someone will point out the error of the following that I listed quite a while back and got virtually no response about it.


quote:
Granting the following:
Sin and evil is that which goes against God and His will

God controls everything including sin and evil

Beings are responsible only and precisely for that which they have control over

God is powerful and good enough to stop all sin and evil

Sin and evil happen on a large and hideous scale in reality

Omitting opposition against sin and evil, is in itself a sin, an evil
So, to say as you do that God controls everything, is the same as saying that God is responsible for everything, and since sin and evil plagues and even predominates this world, how do you rescue God from being responsible for (and/or controlling) all sin and evil?
end quote.



This is for all who think that God controls everything, that sin and evil happen, that it is a sin to not oppose evil when you have the power to do so, and that God is always good. Obviously something is contradictory here.

Of course the reasonable and biblical respose is to realize that does not maticulously control everything and God holds the person responsible for evil not anyone else who is not responsible, like God for example. God is soverign over His creation and ways, He is not in control of evil, God always opposes evil with a righteous response. In fact, it can be argued that if God was to control everything without exception, then that would be evil to do IF God maintains as He does, that He loves man and wants everyone to be saved, yet He forces most to hate Him and to go to Hell. Being carried away with control issues is a sick unhealthy situation, it more closely reflects the desires of the evil rapist kidnapper murder etc.

1Way
January 31st, 2004, 08:39 AM
Z Man's response was to not rescue God from being responsible for evil, he evidently sees no contradiction in not opposing evil when you have the power to oppose it as being evil, or said another way, he must disagree with the bible's teachings about sins of omission and not just commission. If you do not respond appropriately against an evil when you easily could have opposed it, then that is a sin of omission, it is evil. He even plainly espoused fatalism such that no matter his personality (and presumably anyone else's, I don't think Z Man thinks God only made him without a free will) and behavior, he is fine with it because after all, God made him the way he is. I remarked that such a wicked idea can support the rapist and murderer or any evil by saying the same blasphemous thing, attributing everything to God is blasphemy, God is not morally responsible for evil, the person who does the evil, is evil, not otherwise.

So if Z Man will respond to my points, I'd ask him to rescue himself from violating the sins of omission issue, he tacitly denies that view, so I'm sure we are all curious as to how he gets around it. Formally restated it basically is.

Beings are responsible only and precisely for that which they have control over
Omitting opposition against sin and evil (when you clearly have the power to oppose), is itself sin and evil

Unlike Z Man's and Freak's misrepresentations of me, I am more than willing and able to debate on a mature level, but unlike some here, when I see a destructively false teaching (an evil) being promoted as a good and godly thing, then I do not want to commit the sin of omission by not using my powers to oppose that evil. We are all here to stand up for God and His truth and righteousness and in various ways and to varying degrees of consistency (and also some hypocrisy by the nicer than God folk), everyone here is doing exactly what I have done. So we all owe each other the general recognition that it is ok to oppose evil, and that it is a natural problem that we all do not believe the same as everyone else, and so our opposition will naturally be variously displayed, even against each other, those who love and trust in God. Perhaps we all feel that all our comments are justified, perhaps not, but when the attitudes are too combatant and based in the flesh, the resolution and reconciliation becomes almost impossible.

I do not "suck at debate, dude", and Z Man is not simply blasphemous (he thinks I am perverting the truth about God too, so of course he is upset w/us open theist, corporate predestinatarians), we are all beloved of God, so lets start acting like His children a bit more consistently. I have no problem personally opposing all omni-causalists and closed theists for promoting fatalism and blasphemy against God, and I have no problem with the fact that people think differently than I do. Ok, so if I am wrong, put your money where your mouth is, say why, and stop making so many personal attacks instead. Any other resentment or ill will that others may feel comes from me, is not intended, and I apologize if I misled anyone to think otherwise.

Our heartfelt contentions remain while the issue is hardly dealt with. I hope we can proceed without diving into the mud again, and if people share a personal disguest, ok, God's word clearly allows and sometimes promotes such things, it's what putting heart to our beliefs is all about, but lets not get hung up in the need to defend self righteousness, it is His righteousness that ultimately counts.

Z Man
January 31st, 2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Maybe Z Man or Rolf or Jobeth or someone will point out the error of the following that I listed quite a while back and got virtually no response about it.


quote:
Granting the following:
Sin and evil is that which goes against God and His will

God controls everything including sin and evil

Beings are responsible only and precisely for that which they have control over

God is powerful and good enough to stop all sin and evil

Sin and evil happen on a large and hideous scale in reality

Omitting opposition against sin and evil, is in itself a sin, an evil
So, to say as you do that God controls everything, is the same as saying that God is responsible for everything, and since sin and evil plagues and even predominates this world, how do you rescue God from being responsible for (and/or controlling) all sin and evil?
1Way,

Did you not read Rolf's response on post #108 and #111? Those were answers to this question you submit! Yet, you ignore them. You seem to do that a lot. People answer your questions, and you ramble on and on about the same question, stating no one has answered them yet.

This is for all who think that God controls everything, that sin and evil happen, that it is a sin to not oppose evil when you have the power to do so, and that God is always good. Obviously something is contradictory here.
In your mind it's contridictory, but how can it be for God? God doesn't sin, yet you just stated that:

"...sin and evil happen...it is a sin to not oppose evil when you have the power to do so..."

So, are you stating that God is not powerful enough to stop sin and evil, thus the reason sin exists and God is still good? The fact that sin does exist and that God is powerful enough to stop with just a wave of His hand, does not denote an evil God, but rather a merciful and gracious God, one who is patient and slow to wrath. His control over evil is to benefit those who love Him; for we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose (Ro 8:28).

...if God was to control everything without exception, then that would be evil to do IF God maintains as He does, that He loves man and wants everyone to be saved, yet He forces most to hate Him and to go to Hell.
What a load of crap! God doesn't force anyone to hate Him or to go to Hell! We go there because we're sinners. We hate God because we're sinners. It's what humans do. We are born hating God.

You're suggesting that man is sooooo innocent before God and that if He does have control over their salvation, He is evil for not saving a person. That's disgusting to me. It really irritates me to hear people defend mankind against God's judgement, as if mankind is innocent before God, or deserving of His love. What has man ever done to deserve the mercies of God? What if we were to get to the pearly gates, and God asked us why He should let us in, what would our response be?

1Way
January 31st, 2004, 09:36 AM
Z Man - You said
What a load of crap! God doesn't force anyone to hate Him or to go to Hell! We go there because we're sinners. We hate God because we're sinners. It's what humans do. We are born hating God. So which is it, who controls and thus is responsible for all sin and evil? God or man? If I was to go by what you just said, it's man, but you repeatedly say that God controls everything without exception. Or do you say that people are not responsible for what they have control over? You seem to alternate back and forth like you can't make up your mind,
God is responsible for everything, He controls everything,
no man is the blame for hating God, so man is reponsible for some things.

So I am not presenting to you a load of crap, I am presenting to you, your own arguments and claims and how they apparently contradict each other. Like I said, it's fine to have emotional zeal, but there is no need to defend yourself by attacking me especially while I am trying to analyze your views and understand how you rescue yourself from moral and biblical contradiction.

You go on to say.
You're suggesting that man is sooooo innocent before God and that if He does have control over their salvation, He is evil for not saving a person. That's disgusting to me. It really irritates me to hear people defend mankind against God's judgement, as if mankind is innocent before God, or deserving of His love. What has man ever done to deserve the mercies of God? What if we were to get to the pearly gates, and God asked us why He should let us in, what would our response be? No, I am saying that everyone is responsible for their own actions,
Beings are responsible only and precisely for that which they have control over
Omitting opposition against sin and evil, is in itself a sin, an evil If you have a disagreement with these ideas, then, take a deep non-crap filled breath, and reasonably deal with them. As to your remarks about others dealing with my comments to you, your sense directing my attention is noted, I will search out such supposed responses, I have not already noticed and responded too, last I checked Rolf owes me a response going back quite a ways. They are not you, when we are having a discussion, I tend to consider what you have to say.

Here are the maxims or truth claims that I submit, if you disagree with ANY of them, please just simply say so.
Sin and evil is that which goes against God and His will

God controls everything including sin and evil

Beings are responsible only and precisely for that which they have control over

God is powerful and good enough to stop all sin and evil

Sin and evil happen on a large and hideous scale in reality

Omitting opposition against sin and evil, is in itself a sin, an evil Let's put a bit more respect into respect, gratuitous foul ideas does not characterize a good Christian witness, if you are right, then stand on the solid ground of the truth, not the mud of mud slinging.

smaller
January 31st, 2004, 10:16 AM
If God can USE EVIL FOR GOOD then there is NO ONE to blame.

CAN God USE EVIL FOR GOOD?

If SO, then is it possible that EVIL serves God?

After all if HE IS SO MUCH GREATER than EVIL, then EVIL can SERVE HIM and HIS Purposes.

God says HE CREATED ALL THINGS including EVIL.

ALL THINGS consist BY HIM.

NOTHING that is exists apart from Him.

If you say that THE WILL OF MAN exists APART FROM God's Will, then GOD should not be able to HARDEN something APART from Him. This is DIRECT INTERFERENCE by God and a CONTRADICTION of "free will."

If you say that EVIL exists apart from God's Will then you must say that THE SON was not slated for EXECUTION in ADVANCE of His arrival and that God ROLLED THE DICE with Jesus.

The only reasonable conclusion is that ALL MANkind is saved and GOD is GREATER than ALL THINGS and CONTROLS ALL THINGS.

The only reason Calvinists and Freewillers argue is for the subject of THE DAMNATION OF OTHER PEOPLE besides themselves. Calvinists predetermine people to hell. Freewillers say people send themselves there. The end result is THE SAME so why argue about it?

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John The Apostle

If John's statement is TRUE then GOD HIMSELF is DIRECTLY IMPLICATED in EVERYTHING.

If GOD IS NOT implicated in HIS CREATION, then the CREATION has usurped THE CREATOR. This is NOT POSSIBLE unless you have A WIMP god who cannot CONTROL OR CONTAIN His Own Endeavours.

enjoy!

smaller

1Way
January 31st, 2004, 12:22 PM
God is greater than all things, His ways are higher than our ways, but they are also not lower than our ways, let alone they are not responsible for any sin nor evil.

Sin and evil is that which goes against God and His will, so if ANY sin or evil ever exists, then God is not in control of everything without exception. As far as blaming goes, don't blame me for bringing up the idea of personal accountability, God established that idea.

Sin is that which goes against God and His will.
Sin exists, it's the main idea behind the reason we need to get saved.
So it is not according to God's will that sin happens.

It is according to God's will that sin can happen, i.e. He would be unrighteous to pretend that loving and just relationships occur when only one person is in complete control of everything.

godrulz
January 31st, 2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Maybe Z Man or Rolf or Jobeth or someone will point out the error of the following that I listed quite a while back and got virtually no response about it.


quote:
Granting the following:
Sin and evil is that which goes against God and His will

God controls everything including sin and evil

Beings are responsible only and precisely for that which they have control over

God is powerful and good enough to stop all sin and evil

Sin and evil happen on a large and hideous scale in reality

Omitting opposition against sin and evil, is in itself a sin, an evil
So, to say as you do that God controls everything, is the same as saying that God is responsible for everything, and since sin and evil plagues and even predominates this world, how do you rescue God from being responsible for (and/or controlling) all sin and evil?
end quote.



This is for all who think that God controls everything, that sin and evil happen, that it is a sin to not oppose evil when you have the power to do so, and that God is always good. Obviously something is contradictory here.

Of course the reasonable and biblical respose is to realize that does not maticulously control everything and God holds the person responsible for evil not anyone else who is not responsible, like God for example. God is soverign over His creation and ways, He is not in control of evil, God always opposes evil with a righteous response. In fact, it can be argued that if God was to control everything without exception, then that would be evil to do IF God maintains as He does, that He loves man and wants everyone to be saved, yet He forces most to hate Him and to go to Hell. Being carried away with control issues is a sick unhealthy situation, it more closely reflects the desires of the evil rapist kidnapper murder etc.

Exactly. Evil is contrary to God's nature and Jesus came to oppose it, not affirm it as God's mysterious will. This is one reason 1Way and I are Open Theists and not Calvinists (see, we can agree on some things and be nice to each other...good post).

Canon, not cannon (by the way...from another post).

Z Man
January 31st, 2004, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
So which is it, who controls and thus is responsible for all sin and evil? God or man? If I was to go by what you just said, it's man, but you repeatedly say that God controls everything without exception. Or do you say that people are not responsible for what they have control over? You seem to alternate back and forth like you can't make up your mind,
God is responsible for everything, He controls everything directly,
no man is the blame for hating God, so man is reponsible for some things.
Stating that God is in absolute control, and that He controls everything, are two totally different things.

I don't believe that God sins, of course. But I do believe God uses evil that man creates (it is their nature to sin; it's a product of being human) to display His glory in a greater way.

Sin and evil is that which goes against God and His will
I call sin any action which is not intended nor does not glorify God.

God controls everything including sin and evil
He is in control of those things.

Beings are responsible only and precisely for that which they have control over

God is powerful and good enough to stop all sin and evil

Sin and evil happen on a large and hideous scale in reality

Omitting opposition against sin and evil, is in itself a sin, an evil
Implying that God is evil for having the power to stop sin and evil, yet chooses not to, is a dead end street for both the Calvinist and Open Theists view. Of course God has the power to immediately stop sin right now; I hope you believe that as well! But the fact that sin and evil is still present goes to show that God has deceided that now isn't the right time for that. He will eventually destroy all of sin and evil, but time hasn't come yet.

God allows and predestines certain things to happen in certain peoples lives. Some people have a great life, full of blessings, while other's may seem to always be in the pits with a lot of toil and trouble. Everything happens for a reason though. He may not oppose the sin or evil in an individuals life because He knows in His infinite wisdom that greater good will come out of it.

For example, if I do become a fighter pilot, I may be called upon by the President of the United States to shoot down a commercial airliner someday. I may murder a hundred people, but if it's highjacked and on course to destroy something, similiar to 9/11, losing a hundred people is always better than a thousand.

God's scope on reality and time is far more knowledgable than we could ever comprehend. He knows everything, everywhere, everytime. We may not understand why our best friend had to die, but we don't see the big picture like God does. Who knows, maybe that best friend who died could bring family and other friends closer together, who end up going to church for once. Some may be saved in the process of one person's death. Again, look at 9/11. Weeks afterwards, church attendance in America soar. I'm sure several hundred, if not thousands of people came to know Christ during that time. But it took the lives of many people for that to happen.

And of course, the greatest evil ever, the death of Christ, saved billions and billions of people.

1Way
January 31st, 2004, 10:00 PM
Z Man - :doh: Before I make a normal at length response, I can't hardly believe your last words
And of course, the greatest evil ever, the death of Christ, saved billions and billions of people.
because we covered this ground earlier. I thought I corrected/refuted that notion 6 days and 60 posts ago (click here or see entire post below) (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=445616#post445616) when I said the following without meaningful opposing correction.

Z Man and all - I think we have a problem of not dealing upright with moral responsibility. God holds the person responsible for the evil, not the victim or anyone else. The evil done upon Jesus at the cross was in no way attributed to God, it was done by man's self directed self controlled evil will. Consider.
Rom 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. So it is a false question about God being implicated in the evil that took place upon Jesus, what God did do was righteous by passing over sins, it is loving and good to give your life for your friends, no implication of wrong doing in that. It is only when the person believes the overstated idea that "God is in control of everything" that somehow scripture must have been wrong when it describes God's involvement of the death of Jesus at the cruxifiction as "righteous" and "just", not as Z Man and others are trying to say. God is right, the omni-causalist is wrong. God is not in control of everything, man is in control of his own free will, and it is always through free will moral agents that evil (or for that matter good) comes from.

So the evil at the cross was done by man although God did not absolutely know how it would be done, God was wise enough to know that He would have no shortage of evil men who would kill His son if given half the chance. So the evil intentions were already there in place, so for God to do His work of redemption, all He had to do was to deceive the deceiver, and make the devil think that by killing Jesus, Christ would be vanquished, but He rose from the dead and Jesus Christ is Lord and God and the devil won nothing.

Like in a hand to hand combat, I think jujitsu or is it judo, is where it is noted for using your opponents efforts against himself. Same principle is used here, God did something good, by tricking the devil into thinking that it would be good to kill Jesus, instead he sealed his own doom. God did not direct, control nor orchestrate the evil that killed Jesus, He just realized it existed in abundance and used the evil efforts and intentions of men that already existed to thwart evil. And such a thing is always a good thing to do, to use your enemies resources against him.

When trying to determine who is responsible when there are more than one party involved, you always need to ask the question, was that a response to something evil or the initial cause of something evil? It is always good to oppose evil, and that is exactly what God did at the cross, and it is always wrong to cause evil, and that is exactly not what God did at the cross.
Now instead of ignoring this at length refutation of your view, please point counter-point.

1Way
January 31st, 2004, 10:30 PM
Z Man - You quoted my points, and then said, its no good, because God will stop all evil but that just hasn't happened yet.

Yes, I believe that God is more than powerful enough to stop all evil, but I don't think you got my point by my list. I will take each one and present it to you one at a time and ask you to specifically point out what is wrong with my thinking. Oh, my, but before I do that, I am in shock at the following where you said
For example, if I do become a fighter pilot, I may be called upon by the President of the United States to shoot down a commercial airliner someday. I may murder a hundred people, but if it's highjacked and on course to destroy something, similar to 9/11, losing a hundred people is always better than a thousand. I think I agree with your example, casualties of war are an acceptable risk for a righteous cause, although you should make certain to never sacrifice lives unnecessarily. But you said murder, that's it's ok to murder the few instead of murdering the many. That idea is absolutely wrong. You never do evil and say it is good. The lessor of two evils, is still EVIL. The principle is better stated that casualties of war are a sad but worthwhile risk, although they are a very heavy price to pay, it is worth the cause of just warfare. Politically speaking, you always emphasize the efforts to reduce any unnecessary casualties and deaths, but you should never justify the sacrifice of innocent lives by calling that murder, because in so doing, you are admitting being in the moral wrong, yet I would assume that you believe you would be in the moral right to protect national security in a just warfare effort. Never do evil, that good may come of it. Rom 3:8 teaches that expecting good from evil is a condemnable idea.

Ok, I'll get to the rest of your post in my next post, these land mines you are dropping are getting in the way of things. Please try to be a bit more ,,, careful, or at least spread out the heresies over a wider area and time span. (jokingly serious)

1Way
January 31st, 2004, 10:48 PM
After re-reading my last post, I feel the need to re-emphasize the following. Please deeply consider.

Never do evil, that good may come of it. Rom 3:8 condemns the teaching of good coming from evil.

This is such a clear condemnation of a slanderous ungodly teaching and fits perfectly into this discussion about God "using" evil for something good. Never do evil that good may come of it, always respond against evil, like in Judo, he may strike at you, but you throw him over your back. You did not cause or in any way attribute his evil to you, instead you righteously opposed his evil and used his effort against him. The main idea is the righteous response of opposition to evil, not in evil. The response against evil keeps the morality issue separe, you responded right and his evil was opposed, so there is NO need to muddy the waters and say that you used evil for good, like God uses evil for good, etc.

Z Man
January 31st, 2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
God did not direct, control nor orchestrate the evil that killed Jesus, He just realized it existed in abundance and used the evil efforts and intentions of men that already existed to thwart evil. And such a thing is always a good thing to do, to use your enemies resources against him.
That's what I've been saying! You are agreeing with me. God uses evil to thwart evil; to bring about a greater cause or good; to glorify Himself!

Finally...

It is always good to oppose evil, and that is exactly what God did at the cross, and it is always wrong to cause evil, and that is exactly not what God did at the cross.
Nobody ever said that God Himself caused the evil at the cross. I've merely stated that He allowed it.

I think I agree with your example, casualties of war are an acceptable risk for a righteous cause, although you should make certain to never sacrifice lives unnecessarily. But you said murder, that's it's ok to murder the few instead of murdering the many. That idea is absolutely wrong.
You're crying over spilt milk. Would it of made you happier if I had just said the word "kill" instead of "murder"? Anyways, you got my point.

1Way
January 31st, 2004, 11:03 PM
godulz (and Z Man too) - Thank you, we agree on a great deal, and I'm grateful for that. Your support is certainly appreciated. (Thanks for the cannon clarification.) Isn't it sad that we have to struggle over good and evil with Christians? The entire bible is the definitive work ever on the issue of good and evil, yet because of false teachings, well intentioned believers are deeply deceived such that the most simple and obvious ideas can be manipulated upside down like good coming from evil. God says, HATE EVIL, love good, establish justice... If you mix and confuse good and evil, then you ELIMINATE justice altogether, and you end up loving (some) evil and hating (some) good.

1Way
January 31st, 2004, 11:30 PM
Z Man - Thanks for the response, although our so called agreement has been more like a heated disagreement, but I am glad we "may" be closer in views than previously displayed.

I suggest that if you remain consistent with what you just posted in post 178, and you agree that God holds the person responsible for their own actions and sphere of control, not otherwise, then you should re-think the whole "God is in control of everything without exception" idea. I know you did not use those specific words, but that idea is our contention.

Just so you know, I have no problem saying that God is in control of everything (but not without exception), He is Lord God, the creator of all the universe. God is, some say "sovereign", I say "Lord or creator God", over everything, yet particularly in the case of sin and evil, and because we know that sin and evil are against God and His ways, we know that God does not control everything without exception, because evil and sin happens in a grand scale.

God created man with the ability to love and hate God, to not give man that freedom would represent an arguably sick person who feels the need to control everything, which is closer to what the kidnapper rapist murderer does, than a healthy loving person. God is healthy and good, He can deal with being rejected, and not always controlling everything.

I'd better take a break, my head is spinning (LOL) too much roller coaster.

Z Man
February 1st, 2004, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by 1Way
God created man with the ability to love and hate God...
While I agree with everything you just posted, this one sentence stuck out.

I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you on this topic, however, I do believe that men are incapable of loving God unless (and the keyword here is unless) God changes their hearts. I'm not saying that that God creates men to hate Him, and that there are some who, no matter what, can ever love God, I just believe that the oppurtunity to embrace and love God can only be found if God presents His grace before us, and regenerates our hearts. Our hearts and minds think nothing but evil continually. Paul stated that to be fleshly minded is an enmity against God and that no one in the flesh can please God; NO ONE!

It's not that man are trying to love God, and God is refusing to allow us to love Him; it's just that man chooses not to love Christ! They choose to sin and hate God! Our nature is corrupted and sinful, and we are enslaved by sin. Christ must set us free from that bondage, from the bondage of our natural will, before any man can ever hope to love Christ of their own free will.

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 12:46 AM
Lucifer and Adam genuinely could love or hate God. There was nothing back of their will that needed dealing with to allow them to love or hate. Moral choices are seated in the will, not a 'sinful nature'. Sin as a substance rather than a wrong moral choice is a wrong assumption that is leading to a wrong conclusion (negating genuine free will given by God...we also need God's influence and persuasion of truth to move ourselves to surrender to His love and grace).

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 01:54 AM
Z Man - I am honored and grateful, shocked and humbled. I take back most things I said and some things I thought about you. (grin)

You said
I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you on this topic, however, I do believe that men are incapable of loving God unless (and the keyword here is unless) God changes their hearts. I agree that God is excellent at changing the heart, and that man's own natural ability requires God's assistance. My short and quick, is that God has exposed Himself to, and departed knowledge of Himself to everyone. The grace and power of God is indeed enabling, but everyone has equal opportunity, 1) even the invisible attributes of God are clearly seen, and He is the light of the world, 2) the true light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

God does not leave man alone and incapable, man is created with profound knowledge of God and His attributes, and I think that God's grace qualifies is being amongst that experience. The decision is left up to every individual to freely accept or reject God. I agree with you that the effects of the fall are tragic and universal, but so is the offer of redemption, that by one man's sin, death entered, and by one man's righteous act, redemption to the world. (from memory)

This is tremendous! :o No wonder you felt so frustrated, I was trying to establish our differences and you were not substantially "that" different. I hope you accept my humble gratitude about all this, and my standing corrected about our vast differences, it seems that our similarities are greater than what appeared at first glance. You offered me subtle graces by way of simple continuations of our discussion at key moments, and despite our sharp opposition and frustrations, I saw and accepted them toward good hopes. Thanks for even the unspoken caring and thoughtfulness. I'll have to check back tomorrow to see if I was dreaming, I am burning the candle late again. (chuckles)

Blessings

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 09:55 AM
Once again a kinder and gentler 1Way. I knew it was in you. Maybe you share my Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde syndrome or the meds are kicking in (just kidding)? I appreciate your clear posts on this topic. It is possible to honor and edify in our differences.

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 12:21 PM
"kinder gentler ..." :mad: :sozo2: :shut:

Poly
February 1st, 2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

"kinder gentler ..." :mad: :sozo2: :shut:
How dare he call you dirty names! :D

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 03:07 PM
posted by godrulz:
"Once again a kinder and gentler 1Way." 1Way posts:
:mad: :sozo2: :shut:


Poly says:
How dare he call you dirty names!

:1Way: is just :darwinsm: !

That was good and funny, yet ,,, excellent.

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 06:31 PM
So, godrulz, hows those 2 fountain of truth treasure hunts coming along? Got any gold yet? You never said if you have access to a half decent bible study program. Remember, this effects my hopes of getting those two lists available for TOL's public use. If you wont do it, or just need help in doing it, then let me know. Please.

godrulz
February 1st, 2004, 09:33 PM
I have limited time and expertise (computers). I think you are better suited for this.

1Way
February 1st, 2004, 11:46 PM
10-4 :thumb:

Rolf Ernst
February 4th, 2004, 06:58 PM
1Way--discussing Scripture with you is very tiring. You are full of opinions about what Reformed people believe, but almost without fail you terribly misrepresent statements we Reformed people have made.
You fail to properly receive what others say. You gather conclusions from their statements which are not at all warranted, then you slay that strawman which you yourself have built. You make statements about Biblical doctrine for which you have no scriptural evidence. I do not remember you ever buttressing your argument with Scripture. Your posts are so riddled with inaccuracies that I often do not consider them worthy of answering. If you would simply refrain from drawing unwarranted conclusions on the basis of what others say, it would be much more bearable. Why can't you just deal with what others say rather than trying to make something out of their words which they did not at all mean??

Z Man
February 4th, 2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

1Way--discussing Scripture with you is very tiring. You are full of opinions about what Reformed people believe, but almost without fail you terribly misrepresent statements we Reformed people have made.
You fail to properly receive what others say. You gather conclusions from their statements which are not at all warranted, then you slay that strawman which you yourself have built. You make statements about Biblical doctrine for which you have no scriptural evidence. I do not remember you ever buttressing your argument with Scripture. Your posts are so riddled with inaccuracies that I often do not consider them worthy of answering. If you would simply refrain from drawing unwarranted conclusions on the basis of what others say, it would be much more bearable. Why can't you just deal with what others say rather than trying to make something out of their words which they did not at all mean??
Exactly...

godrulz
February 4th, 2004, 11:37 PM
We are all guilty of this at times.:(

jobeth
February 5th, 2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Jobeth, I lost your number months ago during some bizzar phone troubles. Maybe email me and go from there, sorry.
So now that you have my number, why haven't you called me? I need to talk to you.

Do you know what mm's are? Moral Morons.duh, what is evil, what is good, God's will is for both, right? ah, yep, God does evil and good both and His good nature somehow makes the evil that God does, into "good godly ungodliness" and of course there the ever popular "righteous unrighteousness" and the "down home down right divine evil, sin and iniquity", and last but not least, don't forget about dear old "unjust justice" and "upright and morally good immorality".
Just because words for things like "evil" and "unrighteousness" and "immorality" and "unicorns" and "vampires" and "hobbits" and "elves" occur in conversation and have definitions in dictionaries and have stories told about them in novels, does not exclude the possibility that they do not exist in actuality.

A thing can have a definition and not actually exist in the real world both at the same time.

The so-called "evil" of Christ being murdered for crimes He was not guilty of, was not an "unnecessary" evil, but rather, it was a "necessary" evil which was foreordained by God and served a "good" purpose, namely the Complete and Perfect Atonement for all the sin and evil in the world.

Having an Omnicausal God logically requires and necessitates an Unlimited Atonement because if God actually controls everything, then He ought to pay the penalty for all the sin and evil in the world, which, by the way, He did do in Christ.

Which leads me to ask an important question:
The open view denies that God is sole Creator of everything. And it denies that God foreknows the future. Does the open view deny an Unlimited Atonement too?

Freak
February 5th, 2004, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

1Way--discussing Scripture with you is very tiring. You are full of opinions about what Reformed people believe, but almost without fail you terribly misrepresent statements we Reformed people have made.
You fail to properly receive what others say. You gather conclusions from their statements which are not at all warranted, then you slay that strawman which you yourself have built. You make statements about Biblical doctrine for which you have no scriptural evidence. I do not remember you ever buttressing your argument with Scripture. Your posts are so riddled with inaccuracies that I often do not consider them worthy of answering. If you would simply refrain from drawing unwarranted conclusions on the basis of what others say, it would be much more bearable. Why can't you just deal with what others say rather than trying to make something out of their words which they did not at all mean?? Another poster on TOL sees 1Way in the same light as I do. Hmmm...:think:

godrulz
February 5th, 2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by jobeth

Having an Omnicausal God logically requires and necessitates an Unlimited Atonement because if God actually controls everything, then He ought to pay the penalty for all the sin and evil in the world, which, by the way, He did do in Christ.

Which leads me to ask an important question:
The open view denies that God is sole Creator of everything. And it denies that God foreknows the future. Does the open view deny an Unlimited Atonement too?

Actually, an omnicausal God would cause everyone to be saved, because this would be for the highest good and glory of the Loving God. The reality is that not everyone is saved. The atonement is not a literal payment (commercial transaction theory) or everyone would be saved automatically (no further obligation on our part if the debt is literally paid).

Open Theists are in the Arminian camp. Limited atonement is a Calvinistic idea (tuLip; U= unconditional election/L= limited atonement). Open Theists would generally believe in an unlimited atonement...i.e. Jesus died for all men, not just the elect. The reason that not all are saved is not related to limited atonement or only choosing the elect (Calvinism), but is related to man rejecting the provision/atonement by his free moral agency. Hence, man is accountable/responsible for his destiny. God has done everything He can wisely and justly do. The ball is in our court (He draws, we respond).

Perhaps we are using unlimited atonement differently. My use is the standard use in the Calvin/Arminius debate.

Jobeth, what camp are you in again (for clarification)?

Z Man
February 5th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by godrulz
Actually, an omnicausal God would cause everyone to be saved, because this would be for the highest good and glory of the Loving God.
How do you know that?

godrulz
February 5th, 2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

How do you know that?

Love would want all men to be saved from sin and enjoy God forever. Love is the highest good of God and man (in that order). Selfishness is seeking one's good at the expense of love/best of another.

It would be unloving and unjust to create man for the purpose of displaying wrath or watching their torment for sport.

This is self-evident and consistent with the revelation of the character of God and truth of love and holiness.

The problems God faced in the atonement are not personal. He wants to freely forgive, but cannot wisely do so to uphold the moral law of the universe. He does not need to be appeased like the pagan gods demanding sacrifices. He is loving and does not need His inner disposition changed. The problems are governmental. He is the Moral Governor of the universe and cannot wisely or justly forgive without dealing with sin, penalities, continued rebellion, etc. Hence, the conditions of repentance, faith, continuance in addition to His grace and atonement.

1Way
February 5th, 2004, 06:31 PM
Jobeth Ė This is what I like about you, you are the genuine article, I can count on you meaning what you say. This is what I donít like about you, you say weird and contradictory things, even things that contradict God and His word.

You said
The so-called "evil" of Christ being murdered for crimes He was not guilty of, was not an "unnecessary" evil, but rather, it was a "necessary" evil which was foreordained by God and served a "good" purpose, namely the Complete and Perfect Atonement for all the sin and evil in the world. You are a trip,

Evil does not exist
Evil does exist (in the form of necessary evil)

So is this evil good or evil? Make up your mind and stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Secondly, God refutes your view that God was implicated in any unjust evil because of Christís sacrifice.
Romans 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

also

John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down oneís life for his friends. So Godís involvement in Jesus willingly sacrificing His life for ours, was purely a righteous, just and agape. God is not implicated in murder, He says the opposite, that He lovingly sacrificed Himself for us, and, after it happened, He said that was a completely righteous and just thing that God did. Here is what I think you fail to understand. God never holds someone else responsible for someone elseís actions. Just as you and I do all the time, if someone did something especially good or bad, we attribute that to them, not someone else! It is great wickedness to put good for evil and visa versa. Iím tired of repeating these verses, they are still there refuting your ungodly ideas.

As to
Having an Omnicausal God logically requires and necessitates an Unlimited Atonement because if God actually controls everything, then He ought to pay the penalty for all the sin and evil in the world, which, by the way, He did do in Christ. I agree if you grant an omnicausal God. But I disagree with that God for judging against sin and evil and for teaching that sin and evil go against God and His ways. If all Godís doing is good and righteous and holy, then everyone should be as good and godly and righteous and holy as He is. But you are not consistent on that note either.

You said
Which leads me to ask an important question:
The open view denies that God is sole Creator of everything. And it denies that God foreknows the future. Does the open view deny an Unlimited Atonement too? Jobeth, you are so twisted and wrong it is pathetic. We do not deny that God is the sole creator of this created world, all of it, your statement is too broad and unclear. God even created in such a way that evil is possible from free will moral agents. But His is not implicated in any evil because it is always the person who does the evil that is guilty, not someone else.

We do not deny that God foreknows the future, that is also inaccurate. God does a great deal of foreknowing the future, He just does not do it according to the Greek classical pagan understanding, and like your understanding.

You disqualify yourself as a reasonable knowledgable person when you do so much violence to your understandings.

No, we do not deny the unlimited atonement, and your reasonless reason for asking such a question is as reasonless as it plainly is.

I responded to you about how to contact me, no need to pretend like I did not, you have my response, so if you want to talk to me, Iím still waiting.

1Way
February 5th, 2004, 06:42 PM
Right Z Man, Iím quite sure that the problem as stated from Rolf is with me, not his over the top presentations. Thus you agreed with a huge multi post refutation slash correction, except for one concept, and now Iím a bad thinker/communicator. And we ďapparentlyĒ have no lasting problems about that single concept, so for you to suggest my inability to respectfully dialogue these issues, is a stretch of anyoneís imagination. Or were you insincere when you conceded virtually every point I made save the one that was apparently only a slight disagreement?

Playing history revisionism will get you no where quite efficiently. So Rolf is mistaken, give him a break, were all human. The grace should be more than sufficient.

jobeth
February 5th, 2004, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Actually, an omnicausal God would cause everyone to be saved, because this would be for the highest good and glory of the Loving God.
I disagree. Even an Omnicausal, Omnibenevolent God may have a legitimate reason for creating the wicked (Prov 16:4) and pre-condemning them to Hell (Jn 3:18).

The reality is that not everyone is saved.[quote]
I agree that not everyone is saved. The reason not everyone is saved is because not everyone believes the gospel. There are some will never, ever repent and acknowledge the truth, because they are unable to.
[quote] The atonement is not a literal payment (commercial transaction theory) or everyone would be saved automatically (no further obligation on our part if the debt is literally paid). I agree. The atonement was God's act of reconciling the world to Himself. (2 Cor 5:19)
But only those who acknowledge the sufficiency of the Atonement God provided for the world are saved.

It is easy for an Omnicausal God to institute a Conditional Salvation in order to exclude those whom He chooses to exclude.

Open Theists are in the Arminian camp. Limited atonement is a Calvinistic idea (tuLip; U= unconditional election/L= limited atonement).
That is one of the many reasons why I am not a Calvinist.

Open Theists would generally believe in an unlimited atonement...i.e. Jesus died for all men, not just the elect. The reason that not all are saved is not related to limited atonement or only choosing the elect (Calvinism), but is related to man rejecting the provision/atonement by his free moral agency.
I agree that Jesus died for all sin, not just for the sins of the elect only.
And I agree that not all are saved in spite of the fact that Christ already paid the penalty for all sin.
But I disagree that their rejection has anything to do with their own freewill. Rather:
Matthew 11:25 (KJV)
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

John 12:40 (KJV)
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Hence, man is accountable/responsible for his destiny.
I strongly disagree that man is responsible for his own destiny. Rather, God determines every person's destiny.
Romans 9:18 (KJV)
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

God has done everything He can wisely and justly do. The ball is in our court (He draws, we respond). Yes, that is what is commonly taught. But I disagree with that teaching. God is STILL working.
John 5:17 (ESV)
But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."
God is done creating, for now. (God will again create and make all things new, when He creates the new Heaven and new earth in the World to Come). But, even now, God still works in this world. (One example is that God is currently "preparing" a place for His bride and simultaneously "conforming" us into the likeness of His son. But there is no need for me to show you there are many more examples of God working here and now.)

Perhaps we are using unlimited atonement differently. My use is the standard use in the Calvin/Arminius debate.
Well, there may be more than two ways to describe the extent of our Lord's atonement.
1. Christ died for the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for the sins of the elect only.
3. Christ died for the sins of the whole world (= everything that offends people including all natural disasters, wars, governments, and even the Wrath that is to Come, has all been atoned for.)
I affirm #3.

Jobeth, what camp are you in again (for clarification)? Well, let's see. As far as I know, there is no "camp" that believes exactly the way I do.

1. I agree with the Open Theists that the future does not already actually exist. (which means I am not a Arminian)
2. I agree with the Arminians that Christ was the propitiation (=paid the penalty) for the sins of the whole world, and not for the sins of the elect only. (which means I am not a Calvinist)
3. I agree with the Calvinists that God foreknows every future event BEFORE those events are actualized. (which means I am not an Open Theist)

I was raised Southern Baptist, but I got kicked out. Now I attend either the Church of God or Michael Yousef's church or if I want to drive that far, I go to Charles Stanley's church.

Is there some "camp" or denomination that believes exactly the way you do?

Z Man
February 5th, 2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Right Z Man, Iím quite sure that the problem as stated from Rolf is with me, not his over the top presentations. Thus you agreed with a huge multi post refutation slash correction, except for one concept, and now Iím a bad thinker/communicator. And we ďapparentlyĒ have no lasting problems about that single concept, so for you to suggest my inability to respectfully dialogue these issues, is a stretch of anyoneís imagination. Or were you insincere when you conceded virtually every point I made save the one that was apparently only a slight disagreement?

Playing history revisionism will get you no where quite efficiently. So Rolf is mistaken, give him a break, were all human. The grace should be more than sufficient.
:darwinsm:

This is exactly what Rolf, Freak and I just agreed on about you. I made one, simple comment, agreeing with Rolf's post by simply stating "Exactly". And somehow, you come back with a whole paragraph trying to belittle me and declare that I and Rolf are both wrong and insincere, and that:

Rolf is mistaken....The grace should be more than sufficient.

:darwinsm:

Z Man
February 5th, 2004, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Love would want all men to be saved from sin and enjoy God forever.
But what about perfect Justice?

:think:

Love is the highest good of God and man (in that order). Selfishness is seeking one's good at the expense of love/best of another.
It maybe that way in our terms, but would God be selfish if He deceided to "harden" a person's heart to declare and show His glory to many more people, so that they may be saved through the hardness of one person's heart?

It would be unloving and unjust to create man for the purpose of displaying wrath or watching their torment for sport.
If God's glory was never displayed through His wrath on others, how would we ever come to know Him?

Or, put it this way: If Christ never took the wrath of God upon Himself, and displayed His great glory, how would we ever come to know Him?

And another thing, who ever said that God creates men to torment them for sport? That's sick... No one that I know has ever believed in something like that.

The problems God faced in the atonement are not personal. He wants to freely forgive, but cannot wisely do so to uphold the moral law of the universe. He does not need to be appeased like the pagan gods demanding sacrifices. He is loving and does not need His inner disposition changed. The problems are governmental. He is the Moral Governor of the universe and cannot wisely or justly forgive without dealing with sin, penalities, continued rebellion, etc. Hence, the conditions of repentance, faith, continuance in addition to His grace and atonement.
Ok, in that paragraph, you stated:

[God] does not need to be appeased like the pagan gods demanding sacrifices.

But then you turn right around and say:

[God] is the Moral Governor of the universe and cannot wisely or justly forgive without dealing with sin, penalities, continued rebellion, etc. Hence, the conditions of repentance, faith, continuance in addition to His grace and atonement.

I interpret that to mean that you are saying God cannot simply just "forgive" people of their sins without somehow dealing with their sins first. And that's true, but our sins were taken care of on the cross!

You said that in order for a person to be forgiven, they must meet the required conditions of repentance, faith, and endurance in His grace. It sounds to me that those conditions are a way to appease God, like those who try to appease pagan gods through sacrifices; as if we do those good things, then and only then will God save us! As if salvation depends upon man!!! God help us if it ever did depend upon us!!! :shocked:

God already took care of our sins on the cross. We don't have to do anything for God to save us; it's already been done! What could we do anyways to acquire God's mercies? Nothing!

Those who believe and confess that Christ is Lord are those whom Christ died for and saved.

Z Man
February 5th, 2004, 10:56 PM
1Way,

To be quite honest with you, that paragraph directed to me I did not understand one bit. It made absolutely no sense at all. And I could care less what intent you had for it. With that paragraph, you proved exactly what Rolf was talking about in his previous post about you.

jobeth
February 5th, 2004, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by 1Way
You are a trip,

Evil does not exist
Evil does exist (in the form of necessary evil)
Correct.
Evil, defined as being unnecessary pain or harm that causes nothing good, does not ever actually occur.
Evil, defined as being necessary for the purpose of facilitating some good, does actually occur.

Why is this distinction so hard for you to understand?

I wouldn't be offended if you disagreed with me, but I am offended that you have not yet grasped the idea that I am making a distinction between necessary and unnecessary evil.


So is this evil good or evil? Make up your mind and stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Why can't you understand what I am saying?

Animals called "Unicorns" do not actually exist.
Animals called "Horses" do actually exist.
Do those two declarative sentences concerning animals contradict one another? Do you see that I am making a distinction among 2 different kinds of "animals"?

In the same way:

Unnecessay evil is evil.
Necessary evil is good.
Do those two declarative sentences concerning evil contradict one another?
Do you see that I am making a distinction among 2 different kinds of "evil".


God never, ever, ever, ever causes unnecessary evil to occur.
God does cause necessary evil to occur for the purpose of bringing about good.

Unnecessary evil never, ever, ever actually occurs.
Necessary evil is the only kind of "evil" that ever actually occurs.


Secondly, God refutes your view that God was implicated in any unjust evil because of Christís sacrifice.
It is not my view that God was unjust. It pleased Jehovah to bruise Him, (Is 53:10) but God was not unjust in causing Christ to suffer. It was for the joy that was foreordained prior to the cross that he endured the cross. (Heb 12:2)

So Godís involvement in Jesus willingly sacrificing His life for ours, was purely a righteous, just and agape. God is not implicated in murder, He says the opposite, that He lovingly sacrificed Himself for us, and, after it happened, He said that was a completely righteous and just thing that God did. Well of course God's actions were just. He always is just in all His ways. And who would claim otherwise? Some may claim that God is not just. But certainly not me.

Here is what I think you fail to understand. God never holds someone else responsible for someone elseís actions. Just as you and I do all the time, if someone did something especially good or bad, we attribute that to them, not someone else!
Are you saying that Christ dreamed this whole Atonement thing up all by Himself and God had nothing to do with planning or causing the event of the crucifixion?

Didn't Christ himself say "I come to do thy will, O God" and "the Son of Man must suffer, and be rejected, and be killed, and after three days rise again" and that the reason these things must necessarily happen is in order that "the scripture be fulfilled"???

We do not deny that God is the sole creator of this created world, all of it, your statement is too broad and unclear. God even created in such a way that evil is possible from free will moral agents. But His is not implicated in any evil because it is always the person who does the evil that is guilty, not someone else.
Yes, that may be true IF unnecessary evil actually occurs, which I doubt. Even then, the fact remains that they couldn't have done any evil had God prevented them. So why does God get a pass from you, when He could easily have prevented them from doing any evil towards you, and didn't?

We do not deny that God foreknows the future, that is also inaccurate. God does a great deal of foreknowing the future, He just does not do it according to the Greek classical pagan understanding, and like your understanding. How do you know? Maybe I am right and you are wrong. Ever think about that?

You disqualify yourself as a reasonable knowledgable person when you do so much violence to your understandings. Really? And what do you do when you can't even comprehend a simple thing like the distinction between necessary and unnecesary evil.

No, we do not deny the unlimited atonement, and your reasonless reason for asking such a question is as reasonless as it plainly is.

I responded to you about how to contact me, no need to pretend like I did not, you have my response, so if you want to talk to me, Iím still waiting. I changed my mind. I don't want to talk to you while you're in a bad mood.

godrulz
February 6th, 2004, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by jobeth


Is there some "camp" or denomination that believes exactly the way you do?

No, and that is probably true of all of us, which is OK.

The reason God hid things at times was because of their hard hearts and sin. It was not because He wanted to condemn some to hell. It was a judicial hardening or withholding of further light, lest their condemnation would be greater.

godrulz
February 6th, 2004, 12:28 AM
"The Atonement" by Albert Barnes (Bethany House) would clear up misconceptions that are distorting this concept.

jobeth
February 6th, 2004, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

No, and that is probably true of all of us, which is OK.

The reason God hid things at times was because of their hard hearts and sin. It was not because He wanted to condemn some to hell. It was a judicial hardening or withholding of further light, lest their condemnation would be greater.
That's nice. But is that so??
Please explain this:

Hosea 4:6 (KJV)
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

How can God reject people for lacking knowledge if they never had it? And how can people reject knowledge if they never had it?

It seems to me that God considers it a way of punishment, not mercy, when He withholds knowledge.

jobeth
February 6th, 2004, 08:46 PM
Zman:

And another thing, who ever said that God creates men to torment them for sport? That's sick... No one that I know has ever believed in something like that.
Well, maybe that's a sick way to think, but Moses must've thought that way.

Deut. 28:63 (KJV)
And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Why did Moses tell the people that God would "take delight" (ESV) in bringing them to ruin?

Does anyone have a redacting pen on them? One of those black sharpies will do. Pass it over to Zman quick.

Better mark this one out too:
Psalm 2:4 (KJV)
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

godrulz
February 6th, 2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by jobeth

That's nice. But is that so??
Please explain this:

Hosea 4:6 (KJV)
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

How can God reject people for lacking knowledge if they never had it? And how can people reject knowledge if they never had it?

It seems to me that God considers it a way of punishment, not mercy, when He withholds knowledge.

The Word of the Lord was available, but they chose to reject God and His Word. There are many calls for Israel to return to God and His Word. When they came in repentance and obedience, God would lift the exile/judgment and restore them in relationship. It is not God unjustly condemning, but the people being far from God. Read the books and verses in context to know what is going on (vs proof text that does not support your preconceived theology).

godrulz
February 6th, 2004, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by jobeth

Zman:

Well, maybe that's a sick way to think, but Moses must've thought that way.

Deut. 28:63 (KJV)
And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Why did Moses tell the people that God would "take delight" (ESV) in bringing them to ruin?

Does anyone have a redacting pen on them? One of those black sharpies will do. Pass it over to Zman quick.

Better mark this one out too:
Psalm 2:4 (KJV)
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

A theme of Deuteronomy is that God's people will be blessed for their obedience, or cursed for their disobedience. The issue is the heart of the people, not the arbitrary will of God not based on virtue or vice.

Ps. 2:4 God rebukes the rebellious and scoffs at their stupid rejection of Him; He brings righteous judgment based on truth, holiness, and the moral law of God. He does not just arbitrarily pick some to show wrath and some to show mercy. It is based on their reception or rejection of truth and light. Anything else would be contrary to the attributes and character of God and His moral law revealed in Scripture. He is a responsible Moral Governor, not a fickle god.

Z Man
February 6th, 2004, 09:46 PM
You haven't replied to my post yet Godrulz...

:think:

jobeth
February 6th, 2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

The Word of the Lord was available, but they chose to reject God and His Word. There are many calls for Israel to return to God and His Word. When they came in repentance and obedience, God would lift the exile/judgment and restore them in relationship. It is not God unjustly condemning, but the people being far from God. Read the books and verses in context to know what is going on (vs proof text that does not support your preconceived theology).
That may all be so, but you haven't answered my 2 specific questions nor my 1 objection.

Question 1: How can God reject people for lacking knowledge if they never had it?
Question 2: And how can people reject knowledge if they never had it?
Objection 1: It seems to me that God considers it a way of punishment, not mercy, when He withholds knowledge. Am I wrong about that?

jobeth
February 6th, 2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by godrulz
He does not just arbitrarily pick some to show wrath and some to show mercy. It is based on their reception or rejection of truth and light. Anything else would be contrary to the attributes and character of God and His moral law revealed in Scripture. He is a responsible Moral Governor, not a fickle god.

Does God give truth and light universally to everyone and then show wrath to people based on their rejection of that truth and light?
Or does God show mercy to some as a judicial hardening or withholding of further light, lest their condemnation would be greater?

I ask because you affirmed both things, and I don't see how that can be so.
Either God gives truth and light to everyone or He doesn't. So which of these is the case?

1Way
February 6th, 2004, 10:55 PM
Jobeth Ė You said
Correct.
Evil, defined as being unnecessary pain or harm that causes nothing good, does not ever actually occur.
Evil, defined as being necessary for the purpose of facilitating some good, does actually occur.

Why is this distinction so hard for you to understand? I define evil and sin as that which goes against God and His ways and His will. Your definition says nothing about moral wrongs, like immorality and wickedness and deceit. Pain and harm are amoral concepts; you are presenting a purely amoral definition for what you consider to be the two main varieties of evil! Or did you leave out the third moral evil for some reason? Consider:

Doing harm or pain is not a moral issue.
When you kill weeds that are chocking up your garden produce, you are causing harm, when you spank your children for being bad, you are causing them pain, but for a good cause. Also, the reverse is true. The shedding of innocent blood causes harm and pain and is absolutely condemned by God that it should not happen. So your definition is an amoral one, and one that is rather foolish for forgetting about the most significant way that God uses the word "evil", which is somewhere on the order of 95% of the time or more, namely, He uses it to condemn evil and promote goodness, to oppose all wickedness and support and bless righteousness. God is intensely concerned about right and wrong, but in your definition of what evil, somehow you forgot all about right and wrong.

Also, to the extent that you intended on your definition being complete and comprehensive, you have another problem, you contradict scripture in yet another way. You suggest that evil can somehow produce something good, but God says that idea is strictly condemnable, never mix good and evil. This should be obvious since Godís entire word demonstrates the same message only consistently, that good never produces evil and evil never produces good. Consider.



Joh 5:29 "and come forthóóthose who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

8 And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"? óóas we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

Am 5:14 Seek good and not evil, That you may live; So the LORD God of hosts will be with you, As you have spoken. 15 Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts Will be gracious ...

Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!

Pr 14:19 The evil will bow before the good, And the wicked at the gates of the righteous.

1Pe 3:12 For the eyes of the LORD [are] on the righteous, And His ears [are open] to their prayers; But the face of the LORD [is] against those who do evil."

1Jo 3:12 not as Cain [who] was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brotherís righteous. Woe to you Jobeth, for exchanging good and evil and slanderously teaching that it is godly to say that good comes from evil, you condemnation is just. Woe to you for respecting and making evil the means of good, instead of hating evil, there can be no justice if you confuse good and evil. Your ideas are unjust, and unrighteous, they are ungodly, they are against scripture, but they conform precisely to Paganism and Greek mythology.

As just demonstrated from this very small sampling of literally thousands of other teachings that support the exact same message, I get my understanding from Godís word.

So,,, where do you get your definition for what evil is?

About Christ's work at the cross, I said
Here is what I think you fail to understand. God never holds someone else responsible for someone elseís actions. Just as you and I do all the time, if someone did something especially good or bad, we attribute that to them, not someone else!
and then you said
Are you saying that Christ dreamed this whole Atonement thing up all by Himself and God had nothing to do with planning or causing the event of the crucifixion?

Didn't Christ himself say "I come to do thy will, O God" and "the Son of Man must suffer, and be rejected, and be killed, and after three days rise again" and that the reason these things must necessarily happen is in order that "the scripture be fulfilled"??? Your not listening to what I am saying. God planned to sacrifice, not just bruise Jesus a long time before it ever happened, but that makes God, including Jesus, responsible for the most loving and righteous act ever. God "responded" against sin and evil, by His work of redemption at the cross, and it is ALWAYS good to righteously respond against evil, so God did not evil in planning the loving sacrifice of His Son. The people who hated God and His righteousness, they were the one's who killed Jesus, they were the ones who were guilty of shedding innocent blood. And God is not culpable in their ability to do evil either just because He created a world with free will moral agents, because it would be unloving and unjust for God to force everyone and everything to love or to hate Him, to do good or to do evil. To be that controlling is sick in the highest degree, it's like a guy making a puppet and saying, your my wife and you will always do everything that I ask you to do. Also, such egotistical desire to control others is found in all the most wicked criminals, like the murderers and kidnapers, and rapists, they all have an unhealthy desire to control other people's lives, even to end their life if they want them to stop living. God is nothing like that, He is healthy and wise and loving, love and respect and trust is a two way street, we love God because He first loved us, God rejects those who reject Him, it's always a two way street.

So it's not that God had nothing to do with volunteering to die for us, God did not make Jesus do it, He did it voluntarily. You said
So why does God get a pass from you, when He could easily have prevented them from doing any evil towards you, and didn't? It's not from me, God establishes absolute right and wrong, and that He is right and good because He does right and does no evil. It is good to promote loving righteous relationships, and it is good and right and just to oppose evil and unrighteous people.

If you love someone, maybe you are even considering to marry them, but you are not sure if their love for you is true love, when the time is right, if you let them go the way that they will, and they stay, you have won their love, but if they leave, you know the truth of the matter, that their love for someone or something else was stronger than their love for you. True agape is not selfish, true love desires the best for the other person, but will not and can not force the other person to love and respect you. It is foolishness to think that you can force someone's love, let alone respect and caring and trust, these are all two way streets. It's risky business, hoping for love, or trust, or respect, because often we are rejected, and that hurts, but it would be selfish and unjust to force others to do everything we want them to do.

If the evil and unrighteous want to rebel and reject God, ok, that will make the righteous and the godly that much more appreciated, then so be it, God is a healthy righteous and just God, He never forces anyone to love and respect Himself.

I'm not in a bad mood, your more than welcome to call. (Oh and if my mood is completely controlled by God, then how dare you not approve? It's not a bad mood, it's a good mood, you should always say, nothing bad happens, only good things.) I had responded quickly to your request to talk to me, I sent you a message and told you when you could get ahold of me so that you could get ahold of me at your earliest convenience. If you don't want to talk to me after the fact, then don't blame me.

godrulz
February 6th, 2004, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

You haven't replied to my post yet Godrulz...

:think:


Post #?

godrulz
February 6th, 2004, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by jobeth

That may all be so, but you haven't answered my 2 specific questions nor my 1 objection.

Question 1: How can God reject people for lacking knowledge if they never had it?
Question 2: And how can people reject knowledge if they never had it?
Objection 1: It seems to me that God considers it a way of punishment, not mercy, when He withholds knowledge. Am I wrong about that?

Does not compute. God is just and fair and judges according to the light/opportunity they have. Gen. 18:25 "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

Logically, one cannot reject knowledge they never had. Your thought does not compute. Your interpretation, not the verse, is in error?

God can withhold light if people reject the light they have. John's Gospel teaches to believe and you will see, rather than our thinking 'see and I will believe'. Lack of further knowledge and light is also a punishment for grieving/quenching the work of the Spirit (it is secondary that God does not give more light to a hard heart that would result in greater condemnation..this seems to be an act of mercy and justice).

Try looking at your verses in another translation and peruse some non-Calvinistic commentaries. Your concerns seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the verses in context.

godrulz
February 6th, 2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by jobeth

Does God give truth and light universally to everyone and then show wrath to people based on their rejection of that truth and light?
Or does God show mercy to some as a judicial hardening or withholding of further light, lest their condemnation would be greater?

I ask because you affirmed both things, and I don't see how that can be so.
Either God gives truth and light to everyone or He doesn't. So which of these is the case?

If you seek Him, you will find Him. Draw near to Him, and He will draw near to you (both Bible concepts). If you ignore general and specific revelation (creation; Word) you will be without excuse (Romans 1; Ps. 19).

The sun melts wax, but hardens clay. The Son gives truth to all men, but softens some and hardens others depending on the heart disposition (brokenness, repentance, humility vs pride, selfishness, rebellion).

God strives with all men, but men have varying degrees of openess or responsiveness to His persuasion. He does not predestine this since He is just and loving. It is clear what happens with those who respond to or reject the Gospel (Jn. 1-3). Those who did not receive as much knowledge (remote tribe) are still condemned, but will be judged according to the light they had (Rom. 1-3).

If you are Calvinistic, and I support free will, we will view things differently. This is probably the root difference in our assumptions on this topic.

Z Man
February 6th, 2004, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

Post #?
203

godrulz
February 7th, 2004, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

But what about perfect Justice?

:think:

It maybe that way in our terms, but would God be selfish if He deceided to "harden" a person's heart to declare and show His glory to many more people, so that they may be saved through the hardness of one person's heart?

If God's glory was never displayed through His wrath on others, how would we ever come to know Him?

Or, put it this way: If Christ never took the wrath of God upon Himself, and displayed His great glory, how would we ever come to know Him?

And another thing, who ever said that God creates men to torment them for sport? That's sick... No one that I know has ever believed in something like that.

Ok, in that paragraph, you stated:

[God] does not need to be appeased like the pagan gods demanding sacrifices.

But then you turn right around and say:

[God] is the Moral Governor of the universe and cannot wisely or justly forgive without dealing with sin, penalities, continued rebellion, etc. Hence, the conditions of repentance, faith, continuance in addition to His grace and atonement.

I interpret that to mean that you are saying God cannot simply just "forgive" people of their sins without somehow dealing with their sins first. And that's true, but our sins were taken care of on the cross!

You said that in order for a person to be forgiven, they must meet the required conditions of repentance, faith, and endurance in His grace. It sounds to me that those conditions are a way to appease God, like those who try to appease pagan gods through sacrifices; as if we do those good things, then and only then will God save us! As if salvation depends upon man!!! God help us if it ever did depend upon us!!! :shocked:

God already took care of our sins on the cross. We don't have to do anything for God to save us; it's already been done! What could we do anyways to acquire God's mercies? Nothing!

Those who believe and confess that Christ is Lord are those whom Christ died for and saved.

I made some points and you responded. I did not think there was a need to respond to your responses ad infinitum. We disagree on the nature of the atonement and what conditions of salvation refer to. God could forgive people's sins unconditionally, but it would not be for the highest good. Confidence in His rule, justice, holiness, love would be undermined. The fact that there was an atonement shows that their were problems faced by a holy, loving God to reconcile sinful man to Himself. The conditions of salvation are not an appeasment (your misunderstanding) nor a work; they are wise requirements that uphold the moral law of God making it wise for God to freely forgive. They result in transformation and a salvation from sin, not in sin or despite of our sin.

There is much emphasis on holiness, love, trust, obedience for our sanctification. Salvation is not all of God. Relationship involves two parties.

Z Man
February 7th, 2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by godrulz
We disagree on the nature of the atonement and what conditions of salvation refer to.
We sure do! I believe God saves us by His grace, and you believe man saves himself by meeting God's requirements, i.e. his good works.

I believe in Christianity, you believe in religion. That's a big difference!

God could forgive people's sins unconditionally, but it would not be for the highest good.
Says who? How do you know that? Are you God?

Confidence in His rule, justice, holiness, love would be undermined. The fact that there was an atonement shows that their were problems faced by a holy, loving God to reconcile sinful man to Himself.
The fact of the atonement shows that God fixed those problems once and for all. The work is finished. There is nothing we can add to it, or take away from the work that Christ did on the cross in order to be saved.

The conditions of salvation are not an appeasment (your misunderstanding) nor a work; they are wise requirements that uphold the moral law of God making it wise for God to freely forgive.
Whether you like it or not, that's a work. This sentence totally contridicts itself.

To say that there is much more to our salvation than what Christ did at the cross is blasphemy. Christ did it all because there was no way man could ever meet the requirements that God demands from us, which is perfection.

Salvation is not all of God.
Are you nuts??? What could man ever do to appease God and receive His mercies? What requirement could man ever meet of God to receive his salvation?

If there is a way that man can save himself, without the need for God, then there would be no need for Christ. His sacrifice screams to the world that man is helpless and unable to meet God's requirements; perfection.

Relationship involves two parties.
We love God because He first loved us. And no man can say they love Christ without the Holy Spirit living in them.

We do nothing to aid in our salvation what so ever. It is 100% all of God's work. His Spirit that lives through us is the only reason we are able to edify and glorify His most Holy name. If God's presence were not in our souls, then we'd still be lost, doing what we love to do best; sin.

jobeth
February 7th, 2004, 12:23 PM
1way:

So,,, where do you get your definition for what evil is?
Gee whiz, 1way. You really got me with that question. I'm kinda at a loss as to how to answer it, actually.

I mean, suppose, as an example, that one day, out of the blue, my husband, whom I know to be a godly man, were to suddenly pack up a knife and some wood and our only son, and tell me he's heading up into the mountains to sacrifice our son on an altar to God because, you know, God told him to?
Wow. What a mind job.
I can't imagine how I might react to such a thing.
But I tell you this. If I ever got my son back alive after that, I wouldn't let my husband any where near either me OR my son as long as I lived. That's what I think.

Or suppose my pastor, whom I know to be a godly man, who really preaches the Word, and whom I know really hears from God and tells it straight, and he were to suddenly, out of the blue, start preaching to us naked and barefoot, telling us that God told him to preach naked and barefoot for 3 years.
Wow. What a mind job that would be.

And yet both these things actually happened! Not to me, thank God. But they happened.

And, well, for me to sit here and try to make some kind of judgement concerning those events, whether they were good or evil, is something I just would have a really, really hard time of.

So, when you put a question like this one, right here in front of me, and ask me to give you some "definition" of evil and how a person can tell right from wrong, it really puts me on the spot.

A while back there was this Jewish man who up and assinated the Prime Minister of Israel, Menacin Begin, or whatever his name was. And that guy claimed that God told him to do it, because the PM was giving Israeli land to the Arabs. And wow. Can you stand it? What if he was telling the TRUTH??????? What if God really DID tell him to do that? And what if God was PLEASED with that guy for obeying Him?

What do YOU think? Do you think he could have been telling the truth about God telling him to murder the duly-elected leader of the people of Israel?

That's a tough one to call, if you ask me.


It's not from me, God establishes absolute right and wrong, and that He is right and good because He does right and does no evil.
Yes, I know that God only does what is right and never does what is evil. But can't we then legitimately ask:
If God commanded you to sacrifice your only son, would that mean that God was commanding you to do evil?
Of if God commanded you to preach to your congregation while naked and barefoot, would that mean that God was commanding you to do evil?
Or if God commanded you to go and kill the duly-elected leader of your government, would that mean that God was commanding you to do evil?

Because, I'd have to admit that if you did something that God commanded you to do, then it CANNOT be evil. Rather your doing it would have to be considered obedience, not evil. Wouldn't it?

I don't see where you really answered my question:
Why does He get a pass from you, when God could easily have prevented them from doing any evil towards you, and didn't?

Are you saying that the reason is because God loves them? And it is because of God's love for THEM that He doesn't prevent them from doing evil towards YOU?

jobeth
February 7th, 2004, 12:32 PM
Godrulz:

God strives with all men, but men have varying degrees of openess or responsiveness to His persuasion. He does not predestine this since He is just and loving.
Where do those "varying degrees of openness and responsiveness" come from if not from God?

Exodus 4:11 (KJV)
And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?


If you agree that God determines the varying differences among human physical characteristics, then why isn't it God who makes the varying differences among human intellectual or spiritual characteristics?

jobeth
February 7th, 2004, 12:34 PM
Zman:
Why didn't you answer my question? (Post # 209)
Why did Moses tell the people that God would "rejoice" (KJV) or "take delight" (ESV) in bringing them to ruin? See Deut 28:63

Z Man
February 7th, 2004, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by jobeth

Zman:
Why didn't you answer my question? (Post # 209)
Why did Moses tell the people that God would "rejoice" (KJV) or "take delight" (ESV) in bringing them to ruin? See Deut 28:63
God delights in self exhaltation. Through the destruction of wickedness, and the display of God's wrath upon those who practice such things, many more people are able to witness God's power and His glory. God delights in the display of His glory, not neccessarily in the evilness of man. He does not delight in their destruction directly, but in the glorification of Himself through the destruction of evil and wickedness.

godrulz
February 7th, 2004, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

We sure do! I believe God saves us by His grace, and you believe man saves himself by meeting God's requirements, i.e. his good works.

I believe in Christianity, you believe in religion. That's a big difference!

Says who? How do you know that? Are you God?

The fact of the atonement shows that God fixed those problems once and for all. The work is finished. There is nothing we can add to it, or take away from the work that Christ did on the cross in order to be saved.

Whether you like it or not, that's a work. This sentence totally contridicts itself.

To say that there is much more to our salvation than what Christ did at the cross is blasphemy. Christ did it all because there was no way man could ever meet the requirements that God demands from us, which is perfection.

Are you nuts??? What could man ever do to appease God and receive His mercies? What requirement could man ever meet of God to receive his salvation?

If there is a way that man can save himself, without the need for God, then there would be no need for Christ. His sacrifice screams to the world that man is helpless and unable to meet God's requirements; perfection.

We love God because He first loved us. And no man can say they love Christ without the Holy Spirit living in them.

We do nothing to aid in our salvation what so ever. It is 100% all of God's work. His Spirit that lives through us is the only reason we are able to edify and glorify His most Holy name. If God's presence were not in our souls, then we'd still be lost, doing what we love to do best; sin.

If salvation is 100% of God and God's grace is 100% efficacious and the only factor, and if God wants all men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; I Tim. 2:4), then this should lead to universalism (all will be saved). The reality is that not all are saved. Calvinism resolves this by saying God only chooses and saves the elect. Arminianism recognizes that all are not saved because it is possible to reject God's grace and remain in rebellion. The atonement is efficacious for all who believe.

Once again, you do not distinguish between the GROUNDS of salvation (reason for which= GRACE/atonement) and the CONDITIONS of salvation (not without which=repentance, faith, continuance). These conditions are not works. We must cease rebellion to be reconciled. God persuades, but does not coerce. We cannot be saved without God, nor can we save ourselves. We are called to loving submission. Our wills are a factor as well as God's will. This does not make salvation an act of man, but affirms genuine love and relationship, not robotic submission by force.

Z Man
February 7th, 2004, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by godrulz

If salvation is 100% of God and God's grace is 100% efficacious and the only factor, and if God wants all men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; I Tim. 2:4), then this should lead to universalism (all will be saved). The reality is that not all are saved. Calvinism resolves this by saying God only chooses and saves the elect. Arminianism recognizes that all are not saved because it is possible to reject God's grace and remain in rebellion. The atonement is efficacious for all who believe.

Once again, you do not distinguish between the GROUNDS of salvation (reason for which= GRACE/atonement) and the CONDITIONS of salvation (not without which=repentance, faith, continuance).
What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?

If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.

In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way, then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith, because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren't. But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God.

Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need -- namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.

- Inserted from Desiring God Ministries webpage, "What We Believe About The Five Points of Calvinism"

godrulz
February 7th, 2004, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by jobeth

Godrulz:

Where do those "varying degrees of openness and responsiveness" come from if not from God?

Exodus 4:11 (KJV)
And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?


If you agree that God determines the varying differences among human physical characteristics, then why isn't it God who makes the varying differences among human intellectual or spiritual characteristics?

pp. 187, 188 "Is God to Blame? Beyond pat answers to the problem of suffering"

IVP Dr. Gregory Boyd 2003

- some feel Ex. 4:11 teaches that all infirmities are specifically willed by God.

- Yet Jesus and the Gospel authors uniformly diagnosed muteness, deafness, blindness, etc. as directly or indirectly coming from the devil. Jesus demonstrated God's will for people by removing these infirmities. Ex. 4, properly interpreted, will not contradict the ministry of Jesus (he opposed evil and sickness, not affirmed it as God's will).

- We must interpret the Ex. passage in light of Jesus' ministry. One OT verse should not contradict Jesus' explanation for evil. There is no rift between the Father (who supposedly controls Satan...a weak argument) and the Son (who opposes sin, sickness, and Satan). There is no duplicity with Satan and Jesus doing the Father's 'will' (though opposite and mutually exclusive). There is a different interpretation, then, of Ex. 4:11.

- Ex. in context: Moses was arguing that God should not use him because of his bad speech. God was frustrated with Moses in light of His recent miracles demonstrating God's greater ability. Thus God uses emphatic, unqualified language to establish the point that as Creator, He can handle all obstacles in attaining His objectives. In this context, He rhetorically asked Moses: "Who gives speech to mortals?...deaf/blind" It is unlikely that the statement is meant to be taken as a metaphysical explanation of why people are deaf and mute (poking a nail in your ear is not God's fault).

- Notice what God does NOT say in this passage. God speaks of the human condition in general terms. He does not say that He picks and chooses which INDIVIDUALS wil be born mute or deaf (God is not cruel). He simply asserts that He is the Creator of the kind of world in which some people become disabled (accidents, drugs, stupidity, birth defects, etc.). The verse does not teach that God is the direct cause of everything (obscure proof text), but that the Creator can work around obstacles.

- The central truth of the OT is that there is one Creator God, not a multitude of conflicting gods. The OT thus emphasizes that God, like an ancient Near Eastern Monarch, is the ultimate source of everything, whether He wills it directly or not. The Lord emphasizes this so Moses would know his speech was not a problem.

But He is not denying what later revelation will make clear; namely, infirmities such as muteness or blindness originate from Satan, and God wants to empower human mediators to free people from these afflictions.


This is at least an alternate explanation to hyper-Calvinism and is more consistent with the revelation of the character and ways of God as revealed in Christ.

godrulz
February 7th, 2004, 11:59 PM
Arminians believe the atonement is efficacious for all men and in no sense limited. They also believe that only God can save man; we cannot save ourselves. Your understanding and assumptions are flawed, not the atonement.

Z Man
February 8th, 2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by godrulz

Arminians believe the atonement is efficacious for all men and in no sense limited. They also believe than only God can save man; we cannot save ourselves. Your understanding and assumptions are flawed, not the atonement.
Explain in relation to what I've posted. I've just made a valid, credible and understanble post concerning the atonement. Now defend your position.

godrulz
February 8th, 2004, 10:12 AM
Post #226 is my relevant response...differentiate the grounds and conditions of salvation. Your post assumes the interrelated TULIP doctrines (e.g. it argues from total depravity/inability to even respond to truth...I believe we are still in the image of God, though it is defaced...we are born with physical depravity/inevitable death, not morally depraved by 'original sin/Adamic nature'). My understanding assumes the opposite on all points. See the thousands of other posts on TOL about Calvinism vs Open Theism/Arminianism.

Mr Potato Head
February 8th, 2004, 12:01 PM
believe we are still in the image of God, though it is defaced...we are born with physical depravity/inevitable death, not morally depraved by 'original sin/Adamic nature').

Then what does David mean when he says "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"?

godrulz
February 8th, 2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

Then what does David mean when he says "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"?

Sin is a wrong moral choice, not a substance inherited from Adam lodged somewhere in our anatomy. Sin is lawlessness and involves the will. Establish from all of Scripture the nature of sin, and then interpret this verse in light of that.

Ps. 51:5 is a Hebraism or figure of speech (Psalms is poetic, not a doctrinal dissertation or proof texts). Did the newborn baby, fetus, or sperm/egg ('from time mother conceived me') sin in thought, word, or deed? No, but from as long as David could remember, he fell short of the glory of God (perfection).

cf. Ps. 71:5,6 (v.5 my hope and confidence since my youth)...v.6 parallel statement for emphasis (Hebraism)..."From my birth I have relied on you.." David did not consciously rely, as an act of his will, on God when he was 2 days old or a mere sperm/egg at conception. He did not pray and trust until later in life. ("I", not in general sense of God's providence for all creatures)....v.17...since my youth...(it seems in Hebrew thought that relying on God or sinning from conception/birth really means from as long as he can remember...from youth....).

Romans 9:11 "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad.." (a newborn is morally innocent because he has not made moral choices that involve virtue or vice...that is one reason they go to heaven if they do before being morally accountable...they do not need Catholic sprinkling/sacrament to keep them out of hell due to 'original sin').


The NIV translates the Greek word 'flesh' as 'sinful nature'. This is a preconceived theology from Augustine. "Original sin" is a Catholic teaching that is widely accepted but problematic (relies on proof texts and misconceptions of the biblical nature of sin and salvation).

This explanation is at least plausible, so you would need more evidence to make a doctrine out of it.

The Systematic Theology of Charles G. Finney (lawyer/revivalist) dissects 'original sin' and shows what sin is and is not (biblical).

Mr Potato Head
February 8th, 2004, 12:37 PM
So why is it that all of us have sinned if it is not our nature? Do you believe that it is hypothetically possible for us not to sin based on our nature?

godrulz
February 8th, 2004, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

So why is it that all of us have sinned if it is not our nature? Do you believe that it is hypothetically possible for us not to sin based on our nature?

Good questions. Do we sin because we are sinners (your view) or are we sinners because we sin (choice view)?

Romans is clear that all eventually sin. Genesis 1 = creation was very good. Free will and love imply the possibility of sin, not the necessity or certainty of it. God did not intend for Satan or Adam to sin and fall. We are born innocent with a physical propensity to live for the flesh (from a young age we are catered to and see Self as #1 living for our desires). We will all fall short of the glory of God by choice in thought, motive, or deed. There is nothing back of the will (sinful nature) to CAUSE us to sin, but we will all fall short of God's perfect standard in some way. We do not know God from day 1, so it is obvious at some point (before conversion) we will sin by choice and be condemned (universal). Jesus did not sin because He did not have a 'sinful nature'. He did not sin because He chose to live intelligently and in submission to God. We could theoretically not sin, but this is moot since every human has and will sin. Hence, we need a Savior and cannot save ourselves.

Mr Potato Head
February 8th, 2004, 01:10 PM
Romans 5 makes it pretty clear that through Adam we all became unrighteous. So how do we not have a moral sin nature if it's by our own free will alone that we sin and has nothing to do with Adam's sin?

By the way... I do not really know what I believe on this issue. I know I'm talking like I believe we sin because we are sinners but I really don't exactly. I just know I do not believe in TULIP'S T.

Z Man
February 8th, 2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Mr Potato Head
I just know I do not believe in TULIP'S T.
Well I do, and I think you are doing a fine job with the questions Mr. Potato Head.

Z Man
February 8th, 2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by godrulz
Post #226 is my relevant response...differentiate the grounds and conditions of salvation. Your post assumes the interrelated TULIP doctrines (e.g. it argues from total depravity/inability to even respond to truth...I believe we are still in the image of God, though it is defaced...we are born with physical depravity/inevitable death, not morally depraved by 'original sin/Adamic nature'). My understanding assumes the opposite on all points. See the thousands of other posts on TOL about Calvinism vs Open Theism/Arminianism.
I'm not interested in what other's think right now. This is between you and me. I wanna hear what you think. Now, let's go over this step by step, if we have to. Let's start with this first and simple question:

What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?

What do you think?

1Way
February 8th, 2004, 02:41 PM
All - One interesting idea is that in Adam, all fell, thus EVERY human needs to be saved in order to get right with God, but, anyone who goes to hell, does so because of their own sins, not Adam's, because Christ brought redemption to the world just as much as Adam brought sin and death to the world. There is both, a nature to sin issue, and a moral issue involved. I also have not worked it all out.

I think that the age of accountability is a serious factor, God does not hold one accountable for something you are not responsible for, so this brings to mind what happens to unborn and newborn babies. Forgetting individual predestination, does God view them all as being deserving of an eternity in hell despite having done no good or wrong, consider NT reference of Jacob and Esau, where God says that He elected Jacob before neither did any wrong.

Also, consider the nature of the gospel unto salvation, that in Ro 2, or early Romanís, Paul expounds greatly about the nature of Godís revelation and how it accords to his gospel, namely that it takes into consideration the natural man apart from the law, whoís law is written in their hearts.

I believe that no man, apart from Godís aid, is righteous enough for eternal life, we all need Godís grace to become accepted by God.

But all in all, godrulz is right and Z Man was wrong for suggesting that we open theists promote a means of salvation that is in any way apart from the finished work at the cross. Manís faith in God as a human response to the call of salvation is not a work, and faith is a gift of God, God gives everyone coming into this world the light of revelation of Himself, even the invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY seen, so everyone has Godís clear ďlight revealingĒ aid before they ever respond to God, EVERYONE. Another way of saying that, is that rejecting ďCalvinismís individual predestination schemeĒ does not whatsoever imply that we add to what Christ did for our salvation, that is blasphemous and we simply do not do that.

An anit-Calvinist position, is not an anti-Christ position.

1Way
February 8th, 2004, 02:59 PM
Jobeth Ė Please reread my post # 215,

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=456282#post456282

you know, the one where I demonstrated from Godís word the mutual exclusivity of ďright and wrongĒ, ďgood and righteous against evil and badĒ, and the one that condemned your idea of teaching that good comes from evil as being a slanderous condemnable (thus false) teaching.

Then consider my understanding of what sin is, and itís close synonym (moral) ďevilĒ.

Sin is that which goes against (contradicts, rejects, offends, does not conform to) God, His ways and standard of absolute righteousness.

If there is a difference between sin and evil, I will make whatever necessary adjustments to my definition of what sin is.

Also, because of your complaints about you not speaking with me over the phone, I sent you an email dated Jan 26th, entitles simply ďcell #Ē, so that you could get a hold of me at your earliest convenience. Did you get that e-mail? In there, I didnít just tell you to call me, we do not command each other we normally make our requests or concerns known and respond accordingly, yet I never heard back from you in that way neither. You are hard to understand sometimes, even though I try.

Z Man
February 8th, 2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

All - One interesting idea is that in Adam, all fell, thus EVERY human needs to be saved in order to get right with God, but, anyone who goes to hell, does so because of their own sins, not Adam's, because Christ brought redemption to the world just as much as Adam brought sin and death to the world.
I agree. :thumb:

I think that the age of accountability is a serious factor,
I don't believe their is such a thing. Just the name of it itself suggest the fact that we are accountable for our own salvation, which is just not the case.

There is no age of accountability because man has no accountability of their salvation! It's all God's work.

But that's a whole nother topic...

I believe that no man, apart from Godís aid, is righteous enough for eternal life, we all need Godís grace to become accepted by God.
And I agree. But where we part ways is in believing how that grace is applied to a person's life. Is it through some act of goodness on our part, or an act of mercy on God's part? I, of course, believe in the latter. Saving grace through faith is a gift from God.

:think:

But all in all, godrulz is right and Z Man was wrong for suggesting that we open theists promote a means of salvation that is in any way apart from the finished work at the cross.
I was not implying that Armenians, or Open Theists, or whatever you wanna be called, believe that they can be saved apart from God's work at the cross. I was simply making the point that you guys believe there is more to it than just the cross. That Christ's work on the cross did not grant us saving grace, but rather it only allowed men to be saved through their own obediance. You guys believe that:

...the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

Manís faith in God as a human response to the call of salvation is not a work...
Of course not. That's called irresistable grace. :D

...and faith is a gift of God, God gives everyone coming into this world the light of revelation of Himself, even the invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY seen, so everyone has Godís clear ďlight revealingĒ aid before they ever respond to God, EVERYONE.
To believe that God grants faith to every individual is not biblical at all. I could list many scripture references that prove my point if you'd like.

If God did do such a thing, than why do some believe and some don't? You said:

Manís faith in God as a human response to the call of salvation is not a work

and you're exaclty right about that. However, if that call was given to all men, and only some take the initiative of their own will to respond, then it becomes a work, not a gift.

Which is a gift:

1) Bill Gates offers everyone in the world $1 million dollars IF they believe and confess that he is the richest man alive.

or

2) Bill Gates offers you $1 million dollars, which you hastily take because you are in a lot of debt. Because of his generous offer, you believe that he is the richest man alive.

In scenario #1 you get a million dollars IF you accomplish a certain task. In scenario #2 you are given a million dollars freely.

:think:

Another way of saying that, is that rejecting ďCalvinismís individual predestination schemeĒ does not whatsoever imply that we add to what Christ did for our salvation, that is blasphemous and we simply do not do that.
What do you think Christ did for your salvation?

An anit-Calvinist position, is not an anti-Christ position.
No one said it was.

godrulz
February 8th, 2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

I'm not interested in what other's think right now. This is between you and me. I wanna hear what you think. Now, let's go over this step by step, if we have to. Let's start with this first and simple question:

What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?

What do you think?

Post #226 was my post on what I think. There is not a need for any of us to answer every line of every post and then every rebuttal, ad nauseum.

Jesus answered questions with more questions.

Was the atonement a literal commercial transaction and paying of a literal debt to the Father, Satan, or someone else.

Did God need appeasing like the heathen gods, because He was miffed at our sins?

There are 4 main theories on the atonement (moral influence, moral government, commercial transaction, etc.).

Christ's death was a substitute for the penalty of the law. This has to do with PUBLIC justice, not RETRIBUTIVE justice. If Christ died to pay a person's sin debt, then nothing further is needed and all should be saved (universalism). The atonement made it possible for God to freely, wisely forgive without undermining His moral law and moral government (He did not need His inner disposition of mercy and grace changed by a bloody sacrifice).

godrulz
February 8th, 2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

Romans 5 makes it pretty clear that through Adam we all became unrighteous. So how do we not have a moral sin nature if it's by our own free will alone that we sin and has nothing to do with Adam's sin?

By the way... I do not really know what I believe on this issue. I know I'm talking like I believe we sin because we are sinners but I really don't exactly. I just know I do not believe in TULIP'S T.

Briefly, Adam's sin was the occasion/opportunity for humanity's sin. The Federal Headship view is merely a theory, but contradicts the basic thought that the soul that sins is the one that dies (Ezek.). Romans 5 is difficult to exegete. If the same logic is applied throughout, then it would seem to teach that Christ's death was automatically good for everyone (leading to the false doctrine of universalism). In Adam we die (?physically due to sin) and in Christ we are made alive must presume that we identify with Adam when we sin (consequence= death), and we are only made alive in Christ if we believe in Him (not just because He died for humanity= all saved automatically) i.e. the context does have elements of conditionality (e.g. v.17).

We inherited physical depravity from Adam as there were consequences to the human race after the fall...physical death and disease, a propensity to live in the flesh/desires, rather than walk in the Spirit. Moral depravity results as we make sinful choices forming habits and character leading to a destiny. Morality is not inherited since it is a wrong moral choice/lawlessness (not a substance in the genes or blood).

Rolf Ernst
February 8th, 2004, 05:39 PM
1Way gets into Romans five, close to a greater truth he needs, yet he leaves Ro. 5 without it.
"As in Adam all die..."---who are the "all" in Adam spoken of?
They are all those descending from him--and all humanity was "in Adam." As a consequence, they die.
All die in Adam because he was a federal head of all those in him; that is, Adam was (and still is) their representative before God. Therefore, having Adam as a federal head, they became accountable for Adam's sin, and died because of Adam's sin.
As the SCRIPTURE testifies, "...by one man's offense many died..." (v.15); "...by one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation..." (v.18); "...by one man's disobedience many were made sinners..." (v.19). Paul stresses the point that all died BECAUSE OF ADAM'S SIN by referring to the death of infants who were yet in such a state of innocency that they "...had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam..." (v.14). Today, newborn infants still die because of Adam's sin even though they themselves have not sinned personally as Adam did.
1Way leaves Rom. 5 without really seeing the clear contrast Paul was making between Adam and Christ.
As all Adam's children were in him and died as a consequence of his sin, so Christ had in Him children also--all those chosen in Him "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4) For that reason, because children were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, Christ is referred to by Isaiah as ..."the everlasting Father..." Isa. 9:6 and in Isa. 53:10, His children are referred to as "His seed." Notice carefully in Isa. 9:6 that Christ is called the "Prince of Peace" immediately after He is termed "the Everlasting Father." It is to those chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, His "seed," (Isa. 53:10) that He is both the "everlasting Father" and "the Prince of Peace."
Now, begin reading--"As in Adam ALL die, EVEN SO in Christ ALL shall be made alive..." (1 Cor. 15:22); How did all die in Adam? All in Adam DIED. LITERALLY AND WITHOUT FAIL. WITHOUT FAIL AND LITERALLY, ALL IN ADAM DIED!
"EVEN SO"
Even as ALL in Adam died (each and every one literally and without fail,)
"EVEN SO"
"in Christ ALL" LITERALLY AND WITHOUT FAIL, all--each and every one, WITHOUT FAIL AND LITERALLY "SHALL BE MADE ALIVE."
ALL Adam's Children died because of his sin, and ALL Christ's children LIVE (each and every one, literally and without fail,) because of His righteousness.
Adam was a federal head to all in him, and Christ was (and is) the head of the church. Because Adam was a federal head, his sin was imputed to all those in him and they died. Because Christ is the Federal head of the church, His righteousness is imputed to all His seed--those chosen in Him before the foundation of the world--and they LIVE. The apostle Paul spends almost the entirety of Romans chapter five making that point.
Much more could be said, but for the sake of brevity, I stop here. What else could my friends add to this? Does this consideration, and do these mentioned verses bring other verses or points to your minds? PLEASE be my guest!! Expand on it, if you please. Anyone who truly understands Romans chapter five and Romans 9:11 is a CALVINIST!!

godrulz
February 8th, 2004, 06:05 PM
Morality, responsibility, accountability, virtue, vice, sin, righteousness, love, selfishness, belief, unbelief are all rooted in our God-given wills. There is nothing back of the will to result in obedience or disobedience (the essence of sanctification).

One cannot impute sin to someone. Sin is a wrong moral CHOICE. Likewise, God does not impute righteousness literally to someone who is still in a state of rebellion, selfishness, disobedience, and sin. Sin and righteousness are not 'things', but right or wrong moral choices. We form a sin nature or Christ-like nature by our choices. We can be declared righteous based on faith in Christ, but there will be sanctification.

Salvation is a change in ultimate intention. It is so radical that the metaphor 'born again' is used. We used to live supremely for Self and where at enmity with God. Now we lovingly, obediently submit to His Lordship and live supremely for the good and glory of God. These are moral choices, not physical changes in our body.
We also love others equal to ourselves (rather than living selfish in our relationships).

Salvation is a love relationship that involves reconciliation. Literal debt payment, imputation, etc. are concepts that take metaphors and make them literal. If salvation is all of God, then all men should be saved (I Tim.; 2 Pet.). Since all men are not saved, man must be a factor as a moral agent in his lost estate.

1Way
February 8th, 2004, 07:12 PM
Z Man Ė 1 of 2

You said man has no accountability of/for their salvation.

I donít think so, the bible is replete with the sincere and earnest expectation of man to respond to the call of the gospel salvation, we are to seek God, for He is near, yet by your statement and belief in TULIP, man could never in his wildest dreams seek God. God is right, Calvin is wrong, God holds man accountable for his salvation, the warning, the heart cry, the message itself, of the gospel unto salvation, requires manís reasonability to respond correctly.

Salvation is all Godís work, we open theists agree that the finished work at the cross is sufficient nothing can be added to it, and we are by no means Arminian, they are way too Calvinistic for us, please refrain the thought.

I said
I believe that no man, apart from Godís aid, is righteous enough for eternal life, we all need Godís grace to become accepted by God. to which you said
And I agree. But where we part ways is in believing how that grace is applied to a person's life. Is it through some act of goodness on our part, or an act of mercy on God's part? I, of course, believe in the latter. Saving grace through faith is a gift from God. Right, you think that Godís grace is less like what the word necessarily means, it means Godís unmerited favor, it does not mean that God grants it in an arbitrary or capricious way, to me, it means that God honors those who humble themselves and trust in Him. Just like every other single aspect of salvation and righteousness in God, itís a relationship, God is not a controller, He is pro freedom and agape which is not selfish, i.e. everything has to go my way, He is fine with allowing for the freedom of free will agents to hate or love Him in response to Godís self revealed goodness.

Anyway, we are far apart on all that, just thought Iíd share towards a better mutual understanding. But, here seems to be your main issue, and one that I strongly disagree with, you said.
(1) I was not implying that ... Open Theists, ... believe that they can be saved apart from God's work at the cross. (2) I was simply making the point that you guys believe there is more to it than just the cross. That Christ's work on the cross did not grant us saving grace, but rather it only allowed men to be saved through their own obedience. You guys believe that:

(3) ...the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- (4) IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.
(1) Good for you, we are saved by Christís work and nothing else.

(2) Wrong, but, it directly contradicts your previous point. We can not be saved by Christís work alone, and at the same time, itís Christís work plus more.

As to Christís work ďgrantingĒ verses ďallowingĒ men to be saved, that is one vague comparison, weíll have to go deeper into your thought progression to see what you mean.

But it seems to me that this issue is easily settled, if you agree that Christ died for the world (many passages teach this), but that only the few actually end up getting saved (sure we agree), then you necessarily believe that there is ďmore to itĒ than the meritorious work of redemption that Christ brought to the world. If that was all there was to it, then everyone would be saved, closed case, done issue, what are we having for lunch.
... continued next post. ...

1Way
February 8th, 2004, 07:15 PM
Z Man Ė ... continued ... 2 of 2


(1) I was not implying that ... Open Theists, ... believe that they can be saved apart from God's work at the cross. (2) I was simply making the point that you guys believe there is more to it than just the cross. That Christ's work on the cross did not grant us saving grace, but rather it only allowed men to be saved through their own obedience. You guys believe that:

(3) ...the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- (4) IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

(3) The converse is, the death and resurrection of Christ actually saved everyone because He died for everyone and His work is the only work and nothing more for salvation, so all must be saved. Of course that is wrong, so this initial thought is flawed from the get go. It only provided the only work that God would accept so that man could be saved, that is accurate, no other work can save a man, it was required, God provided, God is satisfied with it, most men do not get saved, such is the truth of the matter. It does actually remove Godís punitive wrath from all whosoever is saved, such language is obviously leading up to an eventual point to somehow rescue the author from speaking so many vein things.

Yes, the cross is a place of mercy and grace, it is the only place for the work for salvation, nothing more, nothing less.

(4) There it is again, anti-Calvinism is portrayed as anti-Christian. Sorry, wrong answer. Like I said, and you earlier agreed, God does not leave man up to his own, God gives significant revelation of Himself and His gospel unto salvation, such that God has already demonstrated and offered His grace first, because of this, man can never by his own means respond properly to god. Even when God created Adam, He made him good, thus even though Godís goodness upheld man until he sinned. Man always has aid from God, faith is a gift of God, not as though faith is generated from man without any aid from God.

Godís work of revelation of Himself aids man, every man such that man is able to respond properly to God. And when you say irresistible grace of God, you infer yet another part of TULIP, and again you are wrong. Even after we are saved and have the HS indwelling us and are under His sanctifying grace, we still grieve and resist the HS! To say that Godís grace or goodness can not be resisted is biblical foolishness. Go by Godís word, not mans.

You said
(5) To believe that God grants faith to every individual is not biblical at all. I could list many scripture references that prove my point if you'd like.

If God did do such a thing, than why do some believe and some don't? You said:

Manís faith in God as a human response to the call of salvation is not a work

and you're exaclty right about that. (6) However, if that call was given to all men, and only some take the initiative of their own will to respond, then it becomes a work, not a gift.
(5) I didnít say that God grants faith to everyone, I said what I said, that God reveals Himself to everyone, significant revelation and understanding such that even His invisible attributes are clearly seen, etc. This means that everyone has Godís aid in doing good and right, no one is left unable to respond to God and His ways appropriately. God and His grace is first, then man may reject or accept God based on their own free will.

As to why some do or do not believe, because God is not a controller, man has the freedom to choose, some accept and most reject God, evil is at itís heart illogical yet we understand itís ways. Good is perfectly logical and we understand itís ways too. The best I can say is that men get lost in their sin, which as we know, is illogical. But donít get too carried away with such a question, when the free will theist askes the same question of the Calvinistic predestinian, why does God choose only the few to get saved, the can of worms is spilt and the mess remains even until this very day. We free will theistís have the luxury of looking at any evil or sinful deed, and once considering why man does such things, you have the same workings for why man also rejects God in favor of eternal damnation.

(6) If, please donít insult yourself so blazingly, you know that the call of the gospel has gone out into all the world. Secondly, itís not that only some take the initiative, everyone has the initiative, everyone responds for or against, if you are not for me, you are against me.

Lastly, you say that when man responds in faith to God, then that (somehow) becomes a work not a gift, ,,, what can I say but, no thatís wrong. I think you even know the scripture that refutes that view, faith is accounted for righteousness without works, to him who believes but does not work, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Again, just because we do not accept your brand of individual predestination, does not equate to violating scripture.

:1Way:

Rolf Ernst
February 8th, 2004, 07:40 PM
godrulz--Concerning your post #245:

"...David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom
God IMPUTES righteousness apart from works." Rom. 4:6


The capitalization in the above verse on the word IMPUTES
are mine, added for emphasis.
There are other verses in scripture which teach imputation.
Get yourself a good concordance and spend some time finding out what Scripture teaches. If you don't correct your error on the
matter, I will assume that you consider your authority to exceed the authority of God. I will not take more time with this. Now demonstrate to everyone whether you consider yourself to be an authority higher than the Scripture or not.

godrulz
February 8th, 2004, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

godrulz--Concerning your post #245:

"...David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom
God IMPUTES righteousness apart from works." Rom. 4:6


The capitalization in the above verse on the word IMPUTES
are mine, added for emphasis.
There are other verses in scripture which teach imputation.
Get yourself a good concordance and spend some time finding out what Scripture teaches. If you don't correct your error on the
matter, I will assume that you consider your authority to exceed the authority of God. I will not take more time with this. Now demonstrate to everyone whether you consider yourself to be an authority higher than the Scripture or not.

Romans 4:6 (NIV) "...blessedness of the man to whom God CREDITS righteousness apart from works..."

This blessedness is on the basis of FAITH, not faith and works. The argument of Rom. 4 is that we are justified by faith, as was Abraham. We are justified in God's sight by faith, but in man's sight (evidence) by works. When a person believes, God credits the faith as righteousness, apart from works of the law (instead of counting his sins against him=> forgiveness...relaxing of the penalty of the law). Either you misunderstand the biblical concept of imputation, or the translators are smuggling in their pre-conceived theology of imputation (cf. 'sinful nature' vs literal 'flesh'). A literal imputation of sin or righteousness becomes a metaphysical (substance, essence, thing) issue. In fact, salvation is not a literal metaphysical problem (except perhaps glorification by the resurrection body). Salvation is a MORAL issue, which is in the realm of moral choices and agency. Confusing these different concepts will lead to erroneous conclusions.

Vine's: impute (archaic English KJV may not be the best concept)= to reckon, take into account, or METAPHORICALLY, to put down to a person's account (not literal imputation of a thing)...to reckon or credit is a better sense than impute.

So, God reckons us righteous because of our faith, not works. We still have to have had a change in ultimate intention (who or what we live for), followed by subordinate choices that lead to holiness in life (not just theory or on paper).

(dictionary...impute...ascribe goodness as from another...vs we are sinful or holy in reality, not abstract).

Z Man
February 8th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by godrulz
Was the atonement a literal commercial transaction and paying of a literal debt to the Father, Satan, or someone else.
The atonement was God freely choosing to pay the debt we owe to Him.

Did God need appeasing like the heathen gods, because He was miffed at our sins?
Of course not. Which just goes to show how gracious and wonderful God truely is. Despite our sins and wicked ways, and the fact that God didn't have to die for us, He did so anyways.

If Christ died to pay a person's sin debt, then nothing further is needed...
THAT'S EXACTLY IT!!!! He did it all!!! Glory to God!!!

...and all should be saved (universalism).
Why should all be saved? Why should anyone be saved for that matter?

If God died for one individual, is it not fair to others? Is God obligated to save anyone? Can He not choose who to bestow His grace upon if He so chooses?

The atonement made it possible for God to freely, wisely forgive without undermining His moral law and moral government...
That's it? Christ's death only made it possible to be saved? You believe:

that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.

In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.