PDA

View Full Version : ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 05:17 PM
OK… I gotta vent.

I try to be calm and I try to be patient with those that credit bad things to God via Calvinistic theology. But there are some times I simply can’t be patient or cordial because this twisted sick, perverted theology is sometimes too much to handle.

Today I was listening to a Christian station on the radio. And there was a public service spot which featured a woman explaining a heart wrenching story. She explained that she was diagnosed with Leukemia on her child’s first birthday. She explained that she was treated with intense chemotherapy. She went on to say that she was comforted by God (which of course is fantastic). But then she said that God have given her the cancer so God would also give her the strength to get through it.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shocked:

Can you imagine that?

Can you imagine a women actual thinking that God had given her cancer???

That is just plain sick!

What ever happened to understanding that it was man’s sin (our rebellion) that brought sickness and death into the world? What ever happened to placing the responsibility for bad things with mankind? So now God is a disease dispenser? :confused:

People are just plain stupid.

:dunce:

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 05:19 PM
P.S. Please note that this thread is in the "Exclusively Christian Theology" forum so if you are coming in here to mock God please think otherwise.

I would rather discuss this concept from a Christian or biblical stance.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Melody
May 26th, 2004, 05:27 PM
What's to discuss?

I worked ICU for many years and 90 % of my patient's were there because of drug, alcohol, tobacco, or food abuse.

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Melody

What's to discuss?

I guess nothing. :(

Turbo
May 26th, 2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Knight

What ever happened to understanding that it was man’s sin (our rebellion) that brought sickness and death into the world? Yeah, but the rebellion and sin were all part of the big plan.

But wait... if God's will was to force man to rebel, then the rebellion wasn't really a rebellion at all.

And sin (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin) is defined as "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God." But Calvinists claim to know that all sin is God's will. :dizzy:

Christine
May 26th, 2004, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Yeah, but the rebellion and sin were all part of the big plan.
Yep, they were. :)


But wait... if God's will was to force man to rebel, then the rebellion wasn't really a rebellion at all.
Huh? Man is still responsible for his actions, including sin.


And sin (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin) is defined as "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God." But Calvinists claim to know that all sin is God's will. :dizzy:
The sin may have been predestined, but man is still held responsible for that sin.

Nineveh
May 26th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Christine
The sin may have been predestined, but man is still held responsible for that sin.

Why?

Why would God want to have Jesus (through whom all things were made) experience such a horrible painful death? What was the point? Everything was going fine until Eve dropped the ball.

Rolf Ernst
May 26th, 2004, 06:51 PM
Knight--concerning post #1 on this thread: I guess you never read the book of Job. it is filled with Job's afflictions, and numerous times through it, Job ascribes his toubles to God's determinations concerning him. "For He performs the thing that is appointed for me..." (this is only one of MANY references wherein Job confesses God's absolute, all encompassing providential rule over him)

Maybe you never read Ephesians either, because it says that God works ALL things after the counsel of His own will.

Oops! Must have missed Romans also, because what Paul speaks there is in strict accord with Job and Ephesians--"For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever"(11:36"

Oh no! You also missed Daniel: "He does according to His will in the army of heaven AND AMONG THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH, and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, what are you doing."

And the Psalms--"whatsoever the LORD pleased that did He in heaven and in earth, in the seas and all deep places."

And besides these, you missed a number of places in Scripture which state clearly that god afflicts people with illnesses.

Well, Knight, if you read the Bible carefully through again, maybe you won't miss so much next time.

Granite
May 26th, 2004, 07:06 PM
"Bad things" happen on God's watch, because of him, and with his approval.

I don't know what's worse: the idea that such things such as cancer or the Holocaust take him by surprise, or being forced to acknowledge that such events are part of The Masterplan.

Rolf Ernst
May 26th, 2004, 07:10 PM
Turbo--in post #5, you say, "...if God's will was to force man to rebel..."

That is a prime example of the way you arminians never dare deal with Scripture honestly as you struggle against God's sovereignty.

Let me see you back up your idea that God "forced" man to rebel. You won't find your arrogant ascription of such a thing to God in scripture, nor will you find such foolish prattle from a person of reformed persuasion.

EITHER BACK UP YOUR ABOMINABLE SPEECH OR ELSE APOLOGISE.

Rolf Ernst
May 26th, 2004, 07:20 PM
A major problem with Arminians--they never stop trying to fit God into the small mold which they imagine for Him.

Any scripture which rebukes their foolishness is just overlooked. For some reason, they have never grown up enough theologically to desire a view of scripture which can reconcile all scriptures together without contradiction.

They are more like Job's three friends who blamed his illness on Job's wickedness than they are like Job who ascribed his afflictions to God.
Nevertheless, in the end, God rebuked Job's friends rather than Job.

Clete
May 26th, 2004, 07:33 PM
Rolf Ernst,

Turbo and Knight are not Arminian.

Arminian's are too Calvinistic for them (and me, by the way)!

Granite
May 26th, 2004, 07:36 PM
I just imagine both sides dying, going to heaven, and getting ushered into a classroom. "Hey! Hey, folks! New arrivals! Attention please. Yeeeah. Great. Hey, can I have a show of hands? You TULIP guys? Five pointers? Even four and a half pointers, yeah, over there. Form a line. Super. And you folks? Rest of you? Over here please. Yeeep. Yeah, see, we've got some explaining to do."

Either DEPROGRAMMING FOR FREEWILLERS or DECONSTRUCTING CALVIN. One way or another, SOMEONE will have some re-education to go through...

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Knight

What ever happened to understanding that it was man’s sin (our rebellion) that brought sickness and death into the world? What ever happened to placing the responsibility for bad things with mankind?
No one is saying that mankind has no responsibility, or that we do not do "bad things". Every Calvinists I know would agree with you on that one. And I think that's where a lot of confusion and "straw men" are drawn by the OV'ers/Arminians. They do not understand that we (Calvinists) believe man is responsible, and yet, God is absolutely Sovereign as well. Scriptures teach both.

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Rolf Ernst,

Turbo and Knight are not Arminian.

Arminian's are too Calvinistic for them (and me, by the way)!
What's the difference? You both believe in free-will and that God can be "frustrated" and His will thwarted (although Scripture plainly tells us otherwise).

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Why?

Why would God want to have Jesus (through whom all things were made) experience such a horrible painful death? What was the point?
To display His glory and love. The act was done to self-exalt Himself. As a bonus, we who are chosen are saved. But that is done to glorify Himself as well.

Eph 1:5, 9
...having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will ... having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself...

Php 2:13
...for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Heb 2:10
For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Romans 11:36
For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

Christine
May 26th, 2004, 08:30 PM
Zman, just curious, do you consider yourself a Calvinist?

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Christine

Zman, just curious, do you consider yourself a Calvinist?
In the words of Jonathan Edwards, who said in the Preface to his great book on THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL:

"I should not take it at all amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction's sake: though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them; and cannot justly be charged with believing in every thing just as he taught."

By the way, I find your signature very amusing! :chuckle:

Christine
May 26th, 2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Why?

Why would God want to have Jesus (through whom all things were made) experience such a horrible painful death? What was the point? Everything was going fine until Eve dropped the ball.
The point of Jesus's death? To be a sacrifice for the elect.

Christine
May 26th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

In the words of Jonathan Edwards, who said in the Preface to his great book on THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL:

"I should not take it at all amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction's sake: though I utterly disclaim a dependence on Calvin, or believing the doctrines which I hold, because he believed and taught them; and cannot justly be charged with believing in every thing just as he taught."
So, does this mean you're a full 5-pointer? :)


By the way, I find your signature very amusing! :chuckle:
Thanks. He really said that, too.

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Christine

The point of Jesus's death? To be a sacrifice for the elect.
Not only was His death a sacrifice, but it also saved! But here's a question: Why did He die for the elect? Why save anyone?

Answer: To display His glory. All things exist and are done for this exact purpose. It's the reason we exist and the reason all things happen; to glorify God.

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Christine

So, does this mean you're a full 5-pointer? :)
Yes.

Thanks. He really said that, too.
That doesn't surprise me. And that's why it is funny... :D

Christine
May 26th, 2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Not only was His death a sacrifice, but it also saved! But here's a question: Why did He die for the elect? Why save anyone?

Answer: To display His glory. All things exist and are done for this exact purpose. It's the reason we exist and the reason all things happen; to glorify God.
Z Man- You answer so much better than I. :thumb:

Christine
May 26th, 2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Yes.

:thumb: So, am I. Hopefully, I can learn some from reading your posts.

Nineveh
May 26th, 2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Christine

The point of Jesus's death? To be a sacrifice for the elect.

Would there need to be an "elect" if Eve hadn't invited sin and death into the world?

Clete
May 26th, 2004, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

What's the difference? You both believe in free-will and that God can be "frustrated" and His will thwarted (although Scripture plainly tells us otherwise).

Arminians do not believe this. And no the Scripture teaches just the reverse.

Christine
May 26th, 2004, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Would there need to be an "elect" if Eve hadn't invited sin and death into the world?
Did Eve invite sin and death into the world?

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Nineveh

Would there need to be an "elect" if Eve hadn't invited sin and death into the world?
That's a moot point to argue. The fact is, it happened exactly the way God planned.

Revelations 13:8
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

1Peter 1:20
He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

Clete
May 26th, 2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Z Man
To display His glory. All things exist and are done for this exact purpose. It's the reason we exist and the reason all things happen; to glorify God.

In what way does the act of raping a five year old boy who dies a week later due to a swollen brain that was caused by the severe violent shaking inflicted as his attacker performed his crime glorify God?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Arminians do not believe this.
What? In free-will?

And no the Scripture teaches just the reverse.
About God's will being thwarted??? :confused: In case you haven't read your Bible lately, may I show you the error of your words:

Job 42:1-2
Then Job answered the Lord: "I know that thou can do all things, and that no will of yours can be thwarted."

Psalm 115:3; 135:6
Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.

Whatever the Lord pleases He does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.

Is 14:24,27; 46:9-11; 55:11
The Lord of Hosts has sworn: "As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand....For the Lord of Hosts has purposed, and who will make it void? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?"


"Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My council shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose, calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my council from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.' "


"So shall my Word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but is shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the things for which I sent it."

Jer 32:17
" ' Ah Lord God! It is thou who has made the heavens and the earth by thy great power and by thy outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for thee.' "

Daniel 4:35
All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand or say to Him, "What are you doing?"

Matt 19:26
...with God all things are possible.

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Yeah, but the rebellion and sin were all part of the big plan.

But wait... if God's will was to force man to rebel, then the rebellion wasn't really a rebellion at all.

And sin (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sin) is defined as "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God." But Calvinists claim to know that all sin is God's will. :dizzy: Wow.... "JoBethian" theology to a "T". :D

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

In what way does the act of raping a five year old boy who dies a week later due to a swollen brain that was caused by the severe violent shaking inflicted as his attacker performed his crime glorify God?

Resting in Him,
Clete
Ask Job...

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 09:23 PM
Did Rolf call me an Arminian?????

:chuckle:

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 09:24 PM
Arminian, Ov'ers.... What's the difference? You both believe in a God less glorified...

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Arminian, Ov'ers.... What's the difference? You both believe in a God less glorified... Z Man did God give the woman on the radio her cancer?

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Z Man did God give the woman on the radio her cancer?
Who else could it of been?

Did God give Job his afflictions? Did God give Egypt thier plagues? Did God blind Zach, the father of John? Did God blind Paul? Did God cripple all those people that Jesus had to heal? Does God not do these things to be glorified?

Hilston
May 26th, 2004, 09:30 PM
Hi Knight,

I can sympathize with your frustration, but from a different perspective, of course.

Knight writes:
I try to be calm and I try to be patient with those that credit bad things to God via Calvinistic theology.I also try to be calm and patient with those who seem to have no problem with God not stopping a couple of planes from killing thousands of people.

Knight writes:
She went on to say that she was comforted by God (which of course is fantastic). But then she said that God have given her the cancer so God would also give her the strength to get through it.I agree that this is a horrible distortion, but not for the same reason. The reason the woman developed cancer is possibly genetic, or possibly environment, and most likely a combination of both. God did not give her cancer. She acquired it quite naturally, without any special divine intervention. However, God did in fact decree that she would have cancer, and that she would ignorantly distort the facts concerning Him. God also controls meticulously every cancer cell in her body, holding their atomic structure together, maintaining their existence and preventing them from obliterating.

Knight writes:
What ever happened to understanding that it was man’s sin (our rebellion) that brought sickness and death into the world? What ever happened to placing the responsibility for bad things with mankind?Both are good points. But it should be said that the Calvinistic view does not (should not) assign responsibility to God for bad things, or for anything for that matter. Responsibility implies accountability, and God answers to no one for anything He does or for anything He has decreed.

Clete writes:
In what way does the act of raping a five year old boy who dies a week later due to a swollen brain that was caused by the severe violent shaking inflicted as his attacker performed his crime glorify God?My question is how does the Open Theist worship a god who would not prevent this from happening?

Along those same lines, here's a question for the Open Theists: Surely God could see what was transpiring as the 9/11 terrorists prepared to kill thousands of people. Would it have been against your theology for God to have figured out some way to prevent them from getting on those planes? (e.g. traffic jam? food poisoning? falling-piano or guardrail?) If yes, why? If no, why wouldn't God do everything He could to stop that tragedy?

Thanks,
Jim

PS: Knight -- I (finally) have another editorial cartoon coming -- soon. Cheers.

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

What's the difference? You both believe in free-will and that God can be "frustrated" and His will thwarted (although Scripture plainly tells us otherwise). Oh really?

Proverbs 1:24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, 25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke,

"disdained all my counsel"??? How can that be Z Man? God's word contradicts your word plain and simple.

John 5:40 “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Thwarting God's will is a theme that runs through the entire Bible Z Man. After all... that's why we need Jesus!

Acts 7:51 “You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

How is that we could resist the Holy Spirit if we have no will of our own?

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Who else could it of been?

Did God give Job his afflictions? Did God give Egypt thier plagues? Did God blind Zach, the father of John? Did God blind Paul? Did God cripple all those people that Jesus had to heal? Does God not do these things to be glorified? Oh yea, yea... I forgot....

And God murdered 6 million Jews and He flew planes into the World Trade Center..... God did all of that to glorify Himself. :vomit:

John the Baptist, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Mother Theresa they are all the same aren't they? All perfectly fulfilling God's will to glorify Himself right?

Right????

:rolleyes:

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Oh yea, yea... I forgot....

And God murdered 6 million Jews and He flew planes into the World Trade Center..... God did all of that to glorify Himself. :vomit:

John the Baptist, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Mother Theresa they are all the same aren't they? All perfectly fulfilling God's will to glorify Himself right?

Right????

:rolleyes:
If you think you're any better than Hitler, you have a lot of spiritul "growing" to do....

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

PS: Knight -- I (finally) have another editorial cartoon coming -- soon. Cheers. Hey Jim! Good to see ya!

I love your cartoons! Keep them coming! :D

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Oh really?

Proverbs 1:24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, 25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke,

"disdained all my counsel"??? How can that be Z Man? God's word contradicts your word plain and simple.

John 5:40 “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Thwarting God's will is a theme that runs through the entire Bible Z Man. After all... that's why we need Jesus!

Acts 7:51 “You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

How is that we could resist the Holy Spirit if we have no will of our own?
Unless you figure out another way to interpret those Scriptures, you either

a) Believe the Word of God is contridictory (refer to the passages of Scriptures I presented earlier)

b) Totally ignore the passages that speak plainly and clearly about the soveriengty of God and how His will is never "frustrated", or thwarted

Which is it?

Clete
May 26th, 2004, 09:41 PM
ZMan,

The whole Bible is filled with one story after another about people NOT doing what God wants them to do. In places it says explicitly that people reject the will of God.
To give just one example...
Luke 7:30 "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”

And Arminians do believe as do Calvinists that God cannot be frustrated or His will thrwarted. In this regard they are even less intellectually consistant than Calvinists.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. You know perfectly well that I have read my Bible and knew every one of you supposed proof texts. I know your own arguments better than you do. Nothing you posted requires a belief that God has predestined every single event that will ever occure. Every one of your verses, I freely accept as meaning what they say within their intended contect, and that they in no way conflict with the all the other hundreds of passages that directly indicate the reverse of what Calvinism teaches.
Can you say the same? Even for my one single verse?
Do you believe that Luke 7:30 means what it says? If not, please explain to our audience how Luke 7:30 doesn't mean what it clearly says but rather it means precisely the opposite of what it says. That of course it wasn't really God's will that the Pharsisees get baptized by John. That's clearly what the text says, but that's not what it means. Please, by all means, explain that to us.

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

If you think you're any better than Hitler, you have a lot of spiritul "growing" to do.... You don't like responding directly do you Z Man?

That's OK, I can understand why. Your theology is embarrassing. To embarrassing to flaunt in public without skirting the issue.

But hey..... God asked me to defend Him against the likes of you and I will until my dying day.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.

"Let no one say...."

Clete
May 26th, 2004, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Ask Job...


No sir! I am asking you!

You said, "All things exist and are done for this exact purpose. It's the reason we exist and the reason all things happen; to glorify God.", not Job!

I would like an answer!

In what way does the act of raping a five year old boy who dies a week later due to a swollen brain that was caused by the severe violent shaking inflicted as his attacker performed his crime glorify God?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hilston
May 26th, 2004, 09:47 PM
By the way, gang, there's a difference between God's will being thwarted and someone resisting the Holy Spirit. The former refers to what He has decreed. The latter refers to rebellion in people. God decrees rebellion, and that decree cannot be thwarted. Judas could not resist the decrees of God, nor did he want to. We are all slaves to our natures, preferences, proclivities and circumstances -- and in some cases, slaves to the righteousness of Christ. You never choose what you do not want to choose. Ever.

Jim

Hilston
May 26th, 2004, 09:49 PM
Clete, whilst you're awaiting Zman's answer, I wonder if you might take a stab at the questions I asked.

I wrotes: My question is how does the Open Theist worship a god who would not prevent this from happening?

And ...

Along those same lines, here's a question for the Open Theists: Surely God could see what was transpiring as the 9/11 terrorists prepared to kill thousands of people. Would it have been against your theology for God to have figured out some way to prevent them from getting on those planes? (e.g. traffic jam? food poisoning? falling-piano or guardrail?) If yes, why? If no, why wouldn't God do everything He could to stop that tragedy?

:j

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Knight

You don't like responding directly do you Z Man?
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Z Man

Did God give Job his afflictions? Did God give Egypt thier plagues? Did God blind Zach, the father of John? Did God blind Paul? Did God cripple all those people that Jesus had to heal? Does God not do these things to be glorified?




Unless you figure out another way to interpret those Scriptures, you either

a) Believe the Word of God is contridictory (refer to the passages of Scriptures I presented earlier)

b) Totally ignore the passages that speak plainly and clearly about the soveriengty of God and how His will is never "frustrated", or thwarted

Which is it?
Why don't YOU directly respond? Eat your own words hypocrite...

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

By the way, gang, there's a difference between God's will being thwarted and someone resisting the Holy Spirit. The former refers to what He has decreed. The latter refers to rebellion in people. God decrees rebellion, and that decree cannot be thwarted. Judas could not resist the decrees of God, nor did he want to. We are all slaves to our natures, preferences, proclivities and circumstances -- and in some cases, slaves to the righteousness of Christ. You never choose what you do not want to choose. Ever.

Jim Jim, the point you are making is irrelevant for IF God predestines EVERYTHING there is no will other than His.

Agreed?

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

:rolleyes:

Why don't YOU directly respond? Eat your own words hypocrite... hypocrite????

Ouch!

OK.... I guess I am a hypocrite.

Is there anything I can do about it?

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

ZMan,

The whole Bible is filled with one story after another about people NOT doing what God wants them to do. In places it says explicitly that people reject the will of God.
To give just one example...
Luke 7:30 "But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”

And Arminians do believe as do Calvinists that God cannot be frustrated or His will thrwarted. In this regard they are even less intellectually consistant than Calvinists.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. You know perfectly well that I have read my Bible and knew every one of you supposed proof texts. I know your own arguments better than you do. Nothing you posted requires a belief that God has predestined every single event that will ever occure. Every one of your verses, I freely accept as meaning what they say within their intended contect, and that they in no way conflict with the all the other hundreds of passages that directly indicate the reverse of what Calvinism teaches.
Can you say the same? Even for my one single verse?
Do you believe that Luke 7:30 means what it says? If not, please explain to our audience how Luke 7:30 doesn't mean what it clearly says but rather it means precisely the opposite of what it says. That of course it wasn't really God's will that the Pharsisees get baptized by John. That's clearly what the text says, but that's not what it means. Please, by all means, explain that to us.
Clete,

We've been over this before. Remember? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=517258#post517258)

boogerhead
May 26th, 2004, 09:57 PM
quote: "Proverbs 1:24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, 25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke,

"disdained all my counsel"??? How can that be Z Man? God's word contradicts your word plain and simple."


proverbs 1:24 is refering to wisdom that calls aloud in the street (proverbs 1:20) and makes her speech: ...because i have called and you refused, i stretched out my hand and no one regarded..." this is WISDOM talking here and proverbs 1:20-33 is a warning against rejecting wisdom...

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Knight

hypocrite????

Ouch!

OK.... I guess I am a hypocrite.

Is there anything I can do about it?
You're responsible for your own actions.

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

You're responsible for your own actions. I am??? How so?

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by Knight

I am??? How so?
What do you mean "how so"? As long as you are alive, you are responsible...

Clete
May 26th, 2004, 10:05 PM
Jim!

Where the heck have you been? TOL is way less exciting without Hilston! Great to see you're back!



Originally posted by Hilston
Clete writes:My question is how does the Open Theist worship a god who would not prevent this from happening?

Along those same lines, here's a question for the Open Theists: Surely God could see what was transpiring as the 9/11 terrorists prepared to kill thousands of people. Would it have been against your theology for God to have figured out some way to prevent them from getting on those planes? (e.g. traffic jam? food poisoning? falling-piano or guardrail?) If yes, why? If no, why wouldn't God do everything He could to stop that tragedy?

The short answer is that if people could not do evil they could not do good either. If they could do evil but chose not to then that would be great but love requires volition and volition requires genuine freedom of choice (contingency). If the freedom to do hate and to do wrongly is removed then the ability of love and to do rightly goes with it. Even if the act that would otherwise be considered good is performed, the goodness or rightness of it is meaningless if freedom of choice is discounted.
We therefore worship a God who risks rejection in order to gain a real love relationship with His creation, which was the whole perpose of His creating us to begin with.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 10:06 PM
Z Man says there is no difference between Hitler and John the Baptist after all, according to Z Man they are both equally fulfilling God's will. God is the orchestrator of 9/11 AND the Holocaust. God had James Byrd dragged to death behind a truck and He murdered 161 people in the Oklahoma City bombings.

Can you believe this????

Can you believe a person could think such wicked things about God???

Isaiah 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!

boogerhead
May 26th, 2004, 10:06 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knight

John 5:40 “But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Thwarting God's will is a theme that runs through the entire Bible Z Man. After all... that's why we need Jesus!


read john 5:39...this says "you diligently study the Scriptures because you think that be them you possess eternal life. these are the Scriptures that testitfy about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." read it in context...Jesus is saying that here He is...that diligently studying doesn't equate eternal life...but through Him we can come to the Father...you can't just read one verse and that's that...you gotta look at it in context...

Knight
May 26th, 2004, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

What do you mean "how so"? As long as you are alive, you are responsible... But what can I do within myself to change my ways?

What if God's will is that I be a hypocrite?

Can I thwart His will and repent?????

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

No sir! I am asking you!

You said, "All things exist and are done for this exact purpose. It's the reason we exist and the reason all things happen; to glorify God.", not Job!
Job 42:1-6
Then Job answered the Lord and said: "I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. You asked, 'Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. Listen, please, and let me speak; You said, 'I will question you, and you shall answer Me.' "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes."

Job isn't the only one who realized that all things are done according to His purposes:

Romans 9:22-23
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory

I would like an answer!

In what way does the act of raping a five year old boy who dies a week later due to a swollen brain that was caused by the severe violent shaking inflicted as his attacker performed his crime glorify God?

Resting in Him,
Clete
Who knows. I'm not God. And neither are you. I think it is very foolish and ignorant and extremely unwise of you to think that God cannot bring any good out of such an act of evil. He sees the big picture. He knows who's lives would be affected through such an ordeal. That's why I said, "Ask Job". I was implying that God put Job through such turmoil and affliction to show and display His glory. Jesus was killed to display the glory of God. God brought plagues upon Egypt (even killed the firstborn of everything, humans included) to display His glory. There are many, many, countless more examples in the Bible of God bringing about calamity to display His glory.

Clete
May 26th, 2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Clete,

We've been over this before. Remember? (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=517258#post517258)

Yes I do remember but we aren't talking about His "Ultimate will" you said that God cannot be frustated and that His will cannot be thwarted. Please explain how Luke 7:30 is consistant with this view or is it you who believe the Bible to be contradictory?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lighthouse
May 26th, 2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

I just imagine both sides dying, going to heaven, and getting ushered into a classroom. "Hey! Hey, folks! New arrivals! Attention please. Yeeeah. Great. Hey, can I have a show of hands? You TULIP guys? Five pointers? Even four and a half pointers, yeah, over there. Form a line. Super. And you folks? Rest of you? Over here please. Yeeep. Yeah, see, we've got some explaining to do."

Either DEPROGRAMMING FOR FREEWILLERS or DECONSTRUCTING CALVIN. One way or another, SOMEONE will have some re-education to go through...
I definitely have to agree with granite, on this. At least to a degree. I have a problem with people who are strictly one way or the other with Arminianism or Calvinism. I'm more of a middle ground. I do believe that God can afflict people. But I also don't believe God does afflict every disease. I do believe that all things work together for God's will. I believe that He sees bad things coming, but He's not responsible. God is good. He does nothing but good. As He is love, and does nothing but love. If God's going to afflict anyone with something, it's going to be someone that needs to be incapacitated.

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Knight

But what can I do within myself to change my ways?

What if God's will is that I be a hypocrite?

Can I thwart His will and repent?????
It's not God's will that you be a hypocrite; that would be your own will. It's not His will that we be filthy sinners; we sin because we want to. It's our will that keeps us from loving God. To repent is not to thwart God's will; rather, repenting is the act of God thwarting our own will, so that we may be free from our own bondage in sin...

Hilston
May 26th, 2004, 10:14 PM
Knight,

You write:
Jim, the point you are making is irrelevant for IF God predestines EVERYTHING there is no will other than His.

Agreed?I don't agree. Everyone has a will. The fact that God has decreed in advance every electrical signal in your brain and the reaction of every brain cell to every influence and circumstance in your existence does not preclude the fact that you actually weigh options and choose according to those multifarious influences.

Have you ever chosen an option you did not want to choose?

Jim

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Yes I do remember but we aren't talking about His "Ultimate will" you said that God cannot be frustated and that His will cannot be thwarted. Please explain how Luke 7:30 is consistant with this view or is it you who believe the Bible to be contradictory?

Resting in Him,
Clete
I really do not want to repeat myself. All the answers you look for are in that post I had supplied a link to.

Hilston
May 26th, 2004, 10:22 PM
Knight writes:
But what can I do within myself to change my ways?You could repent, if God decreed that for you.

Knight writes:
What if God's will is that I be a hypocrite?You would not be able to thwart His will. Nor would you want to.

Knight writes:
Can I thwart His will ...No; nor would you want to.

Knight writes:
... and repent?????Only if He decreed that for you.

Knight writes:
Z Man says there is no difference between Hitler and John the Baptist after all, according to Z Man they are both equally fulfilling God's will.Why didn't God expose Hitler to typhoid or come up with a way to stop him?

Knight writes:
God is the orchestrator of 9/11 AND the Holocaust.Why didn't God let the landing gear snap off of one of those planes before takeoff?

Knight writes:
God had James Byrd dragged to death behind a truck ...Why didn't God give those cretins a flat tire 5 miles before they even saw Byrd?

Knight writes:
... and He murdered 161 people in the Oklahoma City bombings.Why didn't God make sure something happened to that Ryder van? Flat tire? Traffic jam?

According to the Open View, God sat idly by and did nothing, even though He could see it all happening before His very eyes. As the Master Chess Player, certainly He could see it coming, yet He did nothing.

Knight writes:
Can you believe this????

Can you believe a person could think such wicked things about God???Indeed.

Jim

boogerhead
May 26th, 2004, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I definitely have to agree with granite, on this. At least to a degree. I have a problem with people who are strictly one way or the other with Arminianism or Calvinism. I'm more of a middle ground. I do believe that God can afflict people. But I also don't believe God does afflict every disease. I do believe that all things work together for God's will. I believe that He sees bad things coming, but He's not responsible. God is good. He does nothing but good. As He is love, and does nothing but love. If God's going to afflict anyone with something, it's going to be someone that needs to be incapacitated.

often our concept of what is "good" is what is "good for us" or what WE think is in our best interest...
we know from romans 8:28 that God works all things for the good of those who love Him...but what we think is "for our good" isn't really at all...we tend to have a pretty selfish outlook on what is "good"

Z Man
May 26th, 2004, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by boogerhead

often our concept of what is "good" is what is "good for us" or what WE think is in our best interest...
we know from romans 8:28 that God works all things for the good of those who love Him...but what we think is "for our good" isn't really at all...we tend to have a pretty selfish outlook on what is "good"
Indeed. An excellent point BH! :thumb:

1Peter 3:17
For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

For some reason, many Christians believe that since we are the "children of God" that there is no way He would do us any "harm". How selfish! If He is not willing to spare His own Son from turmoil and afflicition, then why do so many people reject the notion that God afflicts sinful mankind???

boogerhead
May 26th, 2004, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Indeed. An excellent point BH! :thumb:

1Peter 3:17
For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

For some reason, many Christians believe that since we are the "children of God" that there is no way He would do us any "harm". How selfish! If He is not willing to spare His own Son from turmoil and afflicition, then why do so many people reject the notion that God afflicts sinful mankind???

exactly...He didn't spare His own Son...and "now if we are chilldren, then we are heirs, heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." romans 8:17

Lighthouse
May 27th, 2004, 01:06 AM
Yeah, I know that what we percieve to be good, is not always what is good. But someone who develops cancer, out of nowhere, and is a good person that lives a good life, then it is not good. God had no reason to give them cancer, therefore He did not give them cancer.

okinrus
May 27th, 2004, 05:13 AM
God allowed the women to have cancer. It's kind of like Job. God did not destroy Job's house but he allowed Satan to. Perhaps this is what she is saying?

Clete
May 27th, 2004, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

I really do not want to repeat myself. All the answers you look for are in that post I had supplied a link to.

You didn't explain then and you refuse to explain now.

No surprise really. It cannot be done is a logically coherent way.
The simple fact of the matter is that people do things that God does not want them to do every single day. And that Hell is reserved for those who refuse to glorify God.

I really cannot understand how you and other Calvinist are totally unable to see the totally inconsistent nature of your own belief system. Especially the Jim Hilston style of compatiblism, it is completely self contradictory and obviously so. It's truly as if there is something blinding you guys. Calvinism is so hopelessly self contradictory that it should be the easiest thing in the world to debunk and it is, but it as if there is this wall, or some sort of barrier that prevents many from seeing it. I really don't get it! It's not as if you guys are stupid, you're obviously not! So why is it that you can see that 2+2=7 is not correct but you can't understand that if Knight was hypocritical because there was no other option other than to be hypocritical then to say that he had a choice in the matter is self contradictory! Even if you say he wanted to be hypocritical then that is meaningless because the very fact that he wanted to is itself a predestined unalterable fact, right? It's not as if you guys can say that Knight's personal history has led him down a path that resulted in the evil desire within him that caused him to consciously decide to be hypocritical because you only compound your own logical problem. Everything that Knight has ever thought, or done, or said, or felt, or experienced in any way was not due to his own action but due to God's predestined will being performed. In a Calvinist worldview Knight is a puppet on strings as are we all and to insist that one repent in order to be within God's will is self contradictory and in fact could only be done if God Himself pulled the repent string in His cosmic puppet show. Knight would have no more culpability for his actions than Pinocchio would.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. By the way, I do not actually beleive that Knight was being hypocritical.

Rolf Ernst
May 27th, 2004, 11:04 AM
Peiffer--I guess you never read that the things thatare done by the wicked in darkness should not even be mentioned.

Why do you delight in rolling their gross evils across your own tongue??

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

Knight,

You write:I don't agree. Everyone has a will. The fact that God has decreed in advance every electrical signal in your brain and the reaction of every brain cell to every influence and circumstance in your existence does not preclude the fact that you actually weigh options and choose according to those multifarious influences.

Have you ever chosen an option you did not want to choose?

Jim We have been down this road before and for all intents and purposes your theory is the same as not having a will of our own.

Your idea of "weighing options" is simply for show and the "options" aren't really options at all.

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Hilston
Why didn't God expose Hitler to typhoid or come up with a way to stop him?

Why didn't God let the landing gear snap off of one of those planes before takeoff?

Why didn't God give those cretins a flat tire 5 miles before they even saw Byrd?

Why didn't God make sure something happened to that Ryder van? Flat tire? Traffic jam?

According to the Open View, God sat idly by and did nothing, even though He could see it all happening before His very eyes. As the Master Chess Player, certainly He could see it coming, yet He did nothing.
God isn't the magic babysitter in the sky.

God created a reality and a universe for us that allows us to succeed and fail. It allows us to either follow His will or reject His will. When we follow His will we are rewarded and He guides our steps. When we reject His will we are not guided and and He dopes not direct our steps.

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. 7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil.

With this design we are free to love God with our will which is a true love which is the ultimate purpose of creation in the first place.

Joshua 24:15 “And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

beanieboy
May 27th, 2004, 11:29 AM
If someone says that "God gave me cancer to give me strength", you can take that a lot of ways.

God created Satan. He didn't have to. If he was all knowing, he wouldn't have done it, and everything would be perfect all the time.

Technically, God gives someone cancer simply because everything exists because of God. And when bad things happen, you can witness the love of God.

But I don't think he infects you to show what a good God he is when you are healed.

It's more complicated than that.

For example, when are you moved the most in a friendship, when they are sitting around with you watching TV, or when you really need someone to talk to, and they say they will meet you? It's usually when bad things happen that you truly demonstrate your love for one another. I think it is the same with God, because we are a reflection.

Whaddya think?

Ya'nar#1
May 27th, 2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Knight

P.S. Please note that this thread is in the "Exclusively Christian Theology" forum so if you are coming in here to mock God please think otherwise.

I would rather discuss this concept from a Christian or biblical stance.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.


Knight, you are absolutely right!

It IS very disconcerting when people blame God for the evil that is in the world through sin. I have heard people say God is responsible for all kinds of things, from evil, to just plain physical or emotional "pain" as a result of the outworkings of sin in our bodies and minds.

But whatever goes wrong in this world, IT IS NOT GOD'S FAULT!

It was our older brother and sister, Adam and Eve, that brought rebellion against God into this world, and that act began the development of sin. Sin's malignant effects have devastated this planet and all it's inhabitants--animals and plants included. We suffer because of sin. Yet God, in His benevolent mercy and justice, has helped us all along the way--or none of us would long survive. One of the beneficial effects of the flood was the shortening of man's life span, in order that we would not have to suffer this life for a thousand years. It is your righteous indignation, Knight, that objects so strongly to these wrong-headed people.

Sin brings pain and death. Not God.

Thanks Knight for this reminder!

:thumb:


May God Bless!

--Ya'nar :Princess:

beanieboy
May 27th, 2004, 11:55 AM
Hm. Some of it we bring upon ourselves.

If you get lung cancer and smoke a lot, well, blaming God is silly.

But my Grandmother died of a cyst the size of a grapefruit on her ovary. She never smoked.

So, sometimes these things happen, and they work for God.

smaller
May 27th, 2004, 12:06 PM
OK… I gotta vent.

I try to be calm and I try to be patient with those that credit bad things to God via Calvinistic theology. But there are some times I simply can’t be patient or cordial because this twisted sick, perverted theology is sometimes too much to handle.

Today I was listening to a Christian station on the radio. And there was a public service spot which featured a woman explaining a heart wrenching story. She explained that she was diagnosed with Leukemia on her child’s first birthday. She explained that she was treated with intense chemotherapy. She went on to say that she was comforted by God (which of course is fantastic). But then she said that God have given her the cancer so God would also give her the strength to get through it.

Of course Mr. Knight would prefer to think that God could not make a body that was NOT susceptible to cancer OR that cancer was created by MANKIND or that THE DEVIL has these special ANTI-creative powers, ALL OF WHICH exist OUTSIDE of the WILL OF GOD.

Mr. Knight would also overlook the FACT that HE HIMSELF will not escape this temporal life, but ridicules others in their attempts to RECONCILE these issues and BLAME IT ON THEIR SUPPOSED ignorace and rest upon his OWN strength and knowledge when facing this FACT OF SICKNESS and DEATH.

surprise surprise.....


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you imagine that?

Yes, SURELY it is ALL THEIR FAULTS....he says in typical accuser fashion...


Can you imagine a women actual thinking that God had given her cancer???

That is just plain sick!

Yes ALL THESE THINGS just popped up in CREATION all on THEIR OWN without any CONSENT of God.


What ever happened to understanding that it was man’s sin (our rebellion) that brought sickness and death into the world? What ever happened to placing the responsibility for bad things with mankind? So now God is a disease dispenser?

Yes, sickness and death simply MATERIALIZED out of THIN AIR. ALL the responsibility for ANY bad thing is MAN'S PROBLEM and MAN must get themselves OUT OF IT.

What absurdity.


People are just plain stupid.

Of which because of the WAY YOU THINK you are BETTER....

lol

You need a FASTER CHARIOT my friend. Yours is more than ANTIquated. One made of LIGHT. Can you MAKE LIGHT??? Maybe lend a sympathetic EAR? Comfort someone in SUFFERINGs???

I doubt it. You will do just as you are COMPELLED to do.

Blame and ACCUSE.

smaller

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by beanieboy
God created Satan. He didn't have to. If he was all knowing, he wouldn't have done it, and everything would be perfect all the time.

Beanie you are aware that God did not create Satan as a evil creature right?

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Ya'nar#1
Sin brings pain and death. Not God. Isn't that one of the major themes of the Bible?

P.S. Great post!

smaller
May 27th, 2004, 12:24 PM
Beanieboy ET AL

Here is what Jesus said about SATAN:

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Mr. Knight thinks that because satan was PERFECT in all his ways that satan was PERFECT, but he overlooks that SATAN was a PERFECT DEVIL eh???

Satan was even closer to God then, but God finally got FED UP with the STINK and cast him down to EARTH....guess WHICH EARTH he landed IN???

smaller

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by smaller

Beanieboy ET AL

Here is what Jesus said about SATAN:

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Mr. Knight thinks that because satan was PERFECT in all his ways that satan was PERFECT, but he overlooks that SATAN was a PERFECT DEVIL eh???

Satan was even closer to God then, but God finally got FED UP with the STINK and cast him down to EARTH....guess WHICH EARTH he landed IN???

smaller Uh... so you don't think Satan fell?

Would you like me to prove you wrong?

smaller
May 27th, 2004, 12:34 PM
It is only how YOU read it Knight. When you start from a suppositional position all that is reflected is YOUR OWN HEART...

get it?

You say to yourself SATAN WAS PERFECT except for the INIQUITY that was FOUND IN HIM which you conveniently OVERlook.

You think SATAN created HIMSELF??? and FELL completely of his OWN accord...

All I can say is HE MUST HAVE HAD A POOR MANUFACTURER

or

Your premise is FLAWED severely...(a much more likely case)

So when you say WATCH MY PROOF all I will see is YOUR REFLECTION of THE WORDs and I do not call REFLECTIONS as REAL "proof." They disappear by stirring the WATERs...

enjoy!

smaller

Hilston
May 27th, 2004, 12:44 PM
Hi Knight,

Something's weird about the way you quoted me in your last post. Each of the paragraphs say "Knight writes" but then is followed by my words. Could you kindly edit your for post? I'd hate for lurkers to get confused.

Knight writes:
God isn't the magic babysitter in the sky.If you could have stopped the tragedy of 9/11, would you? Would that make you a "babysitter"? If you could have stopped the Byrd murder, would you have? If you could have stopped Hitler and McVeigh, would you have? Is that being a babysitter?

God could have done any number of things, without overriding man's "free will," to stop these widescale atrocities. But He didn't. Why?

Knight wrote:
Can you believe a person could think such wicked things about God???Again I say: Indeed.

Jim

Rolf Ernst
May 27th, 2004, 01:04 PM
Response to Knight, post #38 and Clete, post #43

Knight, your use of Prov. 1:24, Jn. 5:40 and Acts 7:51 do not in anyway point out an error in Reformed theology. To the contrary, they are proofs of the Reformed view of man's total depravity.

All three of the texts you mention are rebukes of unbelievers. As a consequence of man's fall in Adam, all men are incapable, apart from God's effectual grace, of doing that which is proper in response to God's counsels, though they are very clear and plainly spoken.

Therefore we see many instances wherein men distain God's counsel, are unwilling to come to Christ; will NOT come to Christ, and are ALWAYS stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears.

God has a right to rebuke them for their impenitence. The fact that God had not to that point been pleased to regenerate them does not excuse them. The fact that they, in themselves, could not do what God counseled them to do does not in anyway relieve them of accountabilty to respond positively to God's directives.

Since men share a REAL guilt and legal accountability for EVERY inability which came upon them through their identification with Adam in his rebellion, we are--all of us-- therefore accountable to God for EVERY lack of conformity to the will of God.

Since we are legally accountable for every lack of conformity, it is God's rightful place as governor over His creation to press His just laws upon man's conscience and rebuke failures to conform.

Until He is pleased to regenerate rebels, they can do nothing BUT
rebel against His counsel, but their violation of His expressed will does not in anyway mean that they are successfully frustrating God's secret counsel concerning them. If He has not been pleased to regenerate them, they are in the circumstance of being left in their sin--with a positive inclination to rebellion and worthy of rebuke.

Clete, the same truth applies to your post #43.

Greywolf
May 27th, 2004, 01:57 PM
Lamentations 3:38


Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Hi Knight,

Something's weird about the way you quoted me in your last post. Each of the paragraphs say "Knight writes" but then is followed by my words. Could you kindly edit your for post? I'd hate for lurkers to get confused.Fixed it!

That happens because when you quote me you first state... "Knight writes" and then when I quote you in return it includes the phrase "Knight Writes" but not my actual quote because my actual quote was in the quote code. Kinda strange. I will be more careful next time.


If you could have stopped the tragedy of 9/11, would you? Would that make you a "babysitter"?I am not God. I do not have authority or power over the wills of men.

God COULD have created a reality where it was impossible for anyone to do anything bad. But to do so would have required God removing our freedom and God didn't want to imprison His creation. God deemed that freedom was a necessary risk to allow us the REAL choice to choose Him or reject Him.


God could have done any number of things, without overriding man's "free will," What could have God done to prevent these things without altering mans freewill?

Rolf Ernst
May 27th, 2004, 02:34 PM
Greywolf--your post #87: God performs His will by the power of His word, so it is out of His mouth that good and evil proceed. Your post is therefore a good and valid response to Knight's position in starting this thread. Bravo!

smaller
May 27th, 2004, 02:49 PM
God COULD have created a reality where it was impossible for anyone to do anything bad. But to do so would have required God removing our freedom

So INSTEAD God BINDS all people to DISOBEDIENCE, then plants them in WEAKNESS, HUMILITY, CORRUPTION, DECAY, and eventually DEATH, and gives them all a FREEWILL that is ONLY CAPABLE OF PRODUCING SIN????

Then Knight comes along and calls this FREEDOM???


and God didn't want to imprison His creation.

What a joker you are...really. Your supposed "freewill" cannot see past the end of it's own NOSE...>


God deemed that freedom was a necessary risk to allow us the REAL choice to choose Him or reject Him.

This is only what BLINDED BOUND AND GAGED FREEDOM thinks it sees. Said "freedom" is obviously incapable of SEEING REALITY...

smaller

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by smaller
What a joker you are...really. :wave2:

Hilston
May 27th, 2004, 03:36 PM
Knight writes:
I am not God. I do not have authority or power over the wills of men.That's not required to stop a terrorist. If you could have stopped them, wouldn't you have done it? Use your imagination. Let's say you overheard them talking at Taco Bell and you called the authorities. Let's say one of them defected at the last minute and he told you about it. Would you have done everything you could to stop them?

Knight writes:
What could have God done to prevent these things without altering mans freewill?He could have withdrawn His hand from holding the atoms in the landing gear together on one of the planes and stopped the flight from ever leaving the ground. He could have withdrawn His hand from holding the brain cells together in the hijackers cranium and caused the plane to crash into the ocean, killing only a fraction of the number of people who died on 9/11. He could have brought a microburst along at the right moment and caused the plane to plunge into the bay, saving thousands of lives. None of these override anyone's freewill.

Again, God could have done any number of things to stop these things from happening. Why didn't He?

And again, I quote Knight:
Can you believe a person could think such wicked things about God???Indeed.

Have you ever chosen an option you did not want to choose?

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

That's not required to stop a terrorist.In the context of our discussion it is.

You continue...
If you could have stopped them, wouldn't you have done it? Use your imagination. Let's say you overheard them talking at Taco Bell and you called the authorities. Let's say one of them defected at the last minute and he told you about it. Would you have done everything you could to stop them?Answer = Yes.

You continue...
He could have withdrawn His hand from holding the atoms in the landing gear together on one of the planes and stopped the flight from ever leaving the ground. He could have withdrawn His hand from holding the brain cells together in the hijackers cranium and caused the plane to crash into the ocean, killing only a fraction of the number of people who died on 9/11. He could have brought a microburst along at the right moment and caused the plane to plunge into the bay, saving thousands of lives. None of these override anyone's freewill.Yea... I suppose that is true. He could have done something supernatural to stop these evil actions. But that has not been God's MO. God has occasionally intervened to thwart evil but only in certain circumstances.


Again, God could have done any number of things to stop these things from happening. Why didn't He?As I have stated before... God isn't our cosmic babysitter. God allows us to freely follow His will or reject His will.

He wants us to choose Him without making the choice for us (coerced).

This decision of Gods has the consequence that men may choose evil.

You continue....
Have you ever chosen an option you did not want to choose? As I have answered you dozens of times on this question OF COURSE! Of course I have chose an option I didn't want to choose. Who hasn't?

I am not going down this road again with you Jim, your MATRIX logic is frankly too weird for me to waste my time on again. I will however be glad to continue the other part of the discussion.

Hilston
May 27th, 2004, 06:53 PM
Jim asked: Would you have done everything you could to stop them?

Knight replies:
Answer = Yes.Knight, what would you think of someone who had a chance to do something very simple to thwart the attacks, and knowing fully was about to transpire, nonetheless did not do what he could to stop it?

Jim wrote: He could have brought a microburst along at the right moment and caused the plane to plunge into the bay, saving thousands of lives. None of these override anyone's freewill.

Knight writes:
Yea... I suppose that is true. He could have done something supernatural to stop these evil actions.This is different. This is not intervention. God holds everything together; every atom in the universe is supernaturally sustained by His omnipresent power. I'm merely suggesting that He relax His grip on the atomic structure of some part of the plane. Surely God could do this without a full-blown supernatural intervention. It would just be a very natural increase of entropy in one small part of the universe. E.g. the landing gear could simply fracture, set off a sensor in the cockpit, and bam -- no flight. One less missile to hit the WTC and hundreds of lives are saved.

Knight writes:
But that has not been God's MO. God has occasionally intervened to thwart evil but only in certain circumstances.If God truly wants everyone to have ample opportunity to get saved, why would He sit by and watch thousands of people die, many of whom were probably unsaved, and would have had a chance to believe in Christ?

Jim wrote: Again, God could have done any number of things to stop these things from happening. Why didn't He?

Knight writes:
As I have stated before... God isn't our cosmic babysitter. God allows us to freely follow His will or reject His will.OK, He's not a babysitter. You're not answering the question. I'm not suggesting that God should act like a babysitter. How about just being aware of what's going on and caring enough for those human beings to stop a terrible tragedy, just as you yourself would have done if you had a chance. God had a chance and myriad simple options at His disposal by which to thwart the attacks. Why didn't He do it? You would have. Are you nicer than God?

Knight writes:
This decision of Gods has the consequence that men may choose evil.Is He helpless to mitigate it? Or is He just unwilling?

Jim asked: Have you ever chosen an option you did not want to choose?

Knight writes:
As I have answered you dozens of times on this question OF COURSE! Of course I have chose an option I didn't want to choose. Who hasn't?I haven't. I've never chosen an option I did not want to choose. I can't think of a single one. Do you have an example of one? Anyone? It doesn't have to be Knight. Anyone can answer.

What "Matrix" logic are you referring to?

Jim

Rolf Ernst
May 27th, 2004, 07:59 PM
Knight--In post #93 you say that God has "occassionally intervened to stop evil but only in some circumstances"

Why not define those circumstances, Knight? If you really believe the whole Bible, then act on that belief. Stand upon what it says; because the Bible DOES define the circumstances in which He intervenes--"Even the wrath of man shall praise you, and the remainder of wrath you will restrain."

That is, He restrains the evil which men would of themselves do WHEN He has not purposed good from it it in accord with His holy and just ways.

For some reason, OVers and Arminians just cannot grasp the fact that in that which men do with evil intent, God's motivation in the same event can be for good.

Motivation is the key word--motivation, and final outcome of an action.
Many times, when men intend nothing but evil, the final outcome of their action is altogether different from what they intended.

Turbo
May 27th, 2004, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

I haven't. I've never chosen an option I did not want to choose. I can't think of a single one. Do you have an example of one? Anyone? It doesn't have to be Knight. Anyone can answer. I strongly suspect that your assertion that one cannot choose an option that one does not want to choose is unfalsifiable, because you would define "what one truly wants to choose" as "what one ultimately chooses."

For instance:

He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." Matthew 26:39

And He was withdrawn from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and prayed, saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done." Luke 22:41-42

I could take Jesus at his word and recognize that Jesus wanted to not have to suffer and be killed, but nevertheless submitted to the Father's will, putting aside his own will ("not my will").

But then I would bet that you would say that Jesus wanted to submit to the Father more than he wanted to avoid his torturous execution. How do you know? The very fact that Jesus chose to submit to the Father is the proof. Right?

Hilston
May 27th, 2004, 08:45 PM
Hi Turbo


Knight writes: ...No, actually, Jim wrote ...

I haven't. I've never chosen an option I did not want to choose. I can't think of a single one. Do you have an example of one? Anyone? It doesn't have to be Knight. Anyone can answer.


I strongly suspect that your assertion that one cannot choose an option that one does not want to choose is unfalsifiable, because you would define "what one truly wants to choose" as "what one ultimately chooses."It's falsifiable if you can show me an occasion where you chose an option that you did not want to choose.

<Snip quotes Mt 26:39 Lu 22:41-42>


But then I would bet that you would say that Jesus wanted to submit to the Father more than he wanted to avoid his torturous execution. How do you know? The very fact that Jesus chose to submit to the Father is the proof. Right?No, I know because the Bible says so:

John 12:27 "Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour."

Don't be deceived by traditional theology or the English translations. The Greek is emphatic. Jesus rhetorically asks if He should ask the Father to save him out of this hour. The answer is no. So that is not what Jesus is asking the Father in the Garden. He was asking the Father to save Him from permanent death -- i.e. the dregs of the cup, not the cup itself. Jesus prayed that the cup be removed, and His prayer was heard (Heb 5:7). In Matthew 26:42, the Greek says "Since this cup may not pass from me unless I drink it, thy will be done." That is, the cup passes after He drinks it. It is a prayer to be saved from the grave, that His body would not be left to decay in the tomb, and the Father answered: Yes.

What a glorious truth!

Jim

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Hilston
Knight, what would you think of someone who had a chance to do something very simple to thwart the attacks, and knowing fully was about to transpire, nonetheless did not do what he could to stop it?Again comparing man to God in this instance is not a fair analogy.

If God were to stop every bad or evil action it would defeat God's own desires for us.... for two (at least two) reasons.

1. God would have to intervene in our lives on almost a constant basis. From stopping murderers to stopping adulterers to stopping shoplifters and neighborhood bullies. Our lives would be radically different and we would have little respect for the big bully in the sky who was constantly grabbing us before we fell off our bike.

2. God realizes that His miraculous intervention more often than not turns men away from Him which thwarts His will that we choose Him. I am sure you are very aware that while some chose God after His miraculous interventions and miracles many more rejected Him for these miracles. It seems the more God showed His hand the more men turned away.

Matthew 12:39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Therefore God wanting men to choose Him walks a thin line of giving man enough evidence to choose Him yet not being so overbearing that men rebel against Him.

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

I strongly suspect that your assertion that one cannot choose an option that one does not want to choose is unfalsifiable, because you would define "what one truly wants to choose" as "what one ultimately chooses." Bee... eye... en... gee... oh.

Hilston
May 27th, 2004, 09:23 PM
Again comparing man to God in this instance is not a fair analogy.I totally concede that point. I just want to know what you would think of a person who could have stopped the tragedy but didn't.


1. God would have to intervene in our lives on almost a constant basis. From stopping murderers to stopping adulterers to stopping shoplifters and neighborhood bullies. Our lives would be radically different and we would have little respect for the big bully in the sky who was constantly grabbing us before we fell off our bike.Of course. I'm not talking about every mundane instance, just the heinous ones where evil men take the lives of innocent others. Why doesn't God just stop those? He could do it, right? Why doesn't He, especially the murders of unsaved people who will now have no chance at salvation?


2. God realizes that His miraculous intervention more often than not turns men away from Him which thwarts His will that we choose Him.I'm not asking for miraculous (see below), so this point is moot.


Therefore God wanting men to choose Him walks a thin line of giving man enough evidence to choose Him yet not being so overbearing that men rebel against Him.That's why I suggested surreptitious action. Something undetectable by humans. Surely God is creative enough to come up with ways to save children from being brutally raped, tortured and murdered without making it an obvious miraculous intervention. Like this: Say the homicidal pedophile has done this before, and now God has learned what this guy is capable of. So let's say a mother has prayed that God would protect her child (so we have the prayer request made). Now the the man sets his sights to abduct that woman's child. In answer to prayer, God relaxes His hold on the atomic structure of gastrointenstinal organs of the pedophile, causing severe abdominal pain, requiring him to find a restroom. The child is safe, the pedophile is sufficiently distracted. That just one quick example. This would be so easy for God to do, and no one would be the wiser.

On the Open View, wouldn't you expect God to be a healthy and compassionate God and do whatever He could to (secretly) stop this, and not a sick voyeuristic God who would idly stand by while such an evil act occurred?

Knight
May 27th, 2004, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Hilston
Of course. I'm not talking about every mundane instance, just the heinous ones where evil men take the lives of innocent others. Why doesn't God just stop those? He could do it, right? Why doesn't He, especially the murders of unsaved people who will now have no chance at salvation?Why stop at only the heinous events? If your argument holds God should be protecting us from hurting each other all the time!

You continue....
That's why I suggested surreptitious action. Something undetectable by humans. Surely God is creative enough to come up with ways to save children from being brutally raped, tortured and murdered without making it an obvious miraculous intervention. Like this: Say the homicidal pedophile has done this before, and now God has learned what this guy is capable of. So let's say a mother has prayed that God would protect her child (so we have the prayer request made). Now the the man sets his sights to abduct that woman's child. In answer to prayer, God relaxes His hold on the atomic structure of gastrointenstinal organs of the pedophile, causing severe abdominal pain, requiring him to find a restroom. The child is safe, the pedophile is sufficiently distracted. That just one quick example. This would be so easy for God to do, and no one would be the wiser. Uhm.... Jim.... your story begs the question.... why didn't God prevent the first homicidal rape? Why only stop the second one? :confused:


On the Open View, wouldn't you expect God to be a healthy and compassionate God and do whatever He could to (secretly) stop this, and not a sick voyeuristic God who would idly stand by while such an evil act occurred? LOL.... ah you mean you would rather have the God that is BEHIND all of the evil in the world right??? :chuckle:

You complain about voyeurism but preach evil mastermind!

Not that is rich indeed.

Hilston
May 27th, 2004, 09:51 PM
Knight,

You write:
Why stop at only the heinous events? If your argument holds God should be protecting us from hurting each other all the time!Just those events that would most benefit God's desire to save as many people as possible. A heinous evil murder of an innocent person prevents the salvation of that person forever. The stubbing of a toe does not.


Uhm.... Jim.... your story begs the question.... why didn't God prevent the first homicidal rape? Why only stop the second one?I'm starting from the Open View. On the Open View, God might not have seen it coming. I'm cutting God some slack, Knight. That's not "question-begging." Do you agree that it would be an easy thing for God to do, and that He could do it without anyone knowing that He was behind it?

Jim wrote: On the Open View, wouldn't you expect God to be a healthy and compassionate God and do whatever He could to (secretly) stop this, and not a sick voyeuristic God who would idly stand by while such an evil act occurred?


LOL.... ah you mean you would rather have the God that is BEHIND all of the evil in the world right???No, I'm talking about the Open View, Knight. Wouldn't you, as an Open Theist, expect God to be a healthy and compassionate God and do whatever He could to (secretly) stop this?

Yorzhik
May 27th, 2004, 10:47 PM
Hilston writes:
No, I'm talking about the Open View, Knight. Wouldn't you, as an Open Theist, expect God to be a healthy and compassionate God and do whatever He could to (secretly) stop this?
No. I would expect God to be consistant with His character and leave the atoms the way He said He would, and let people have free will in the way He said He would.

Hilston
May 27th, 2004, 10:58 PM
Yorzhik,

Didn't I already concede that God would leave free will alone? Let's further assume He doesn't alter the atoms (He can't "leave them alone" -- He holds them together!). Couldn't God come up with myriad creative ways to prevent evil people from murdering innocent people who might someday get saved?

Wouldn't a healthy God do something to stop the premature deaths of people who might otherwise have become believers?

Jim

Lighthouse
May 27th, 2004, 11:15 PM
Clete-
Hell is not reserved for those who reject Christ. Hell was made for Satan, and all the angels that followed him, in their rejection of God. Yes, people go there too, but it was not made for them. It is not reserved for them, but they go ther if they reject Christ's death [and therefore accept their own].

Z Man
May 27th, 2004, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I really cannot understand how you and other Calvinist are totally unable to see the totally inconsistent nature of your own belief system. It's truly as if there is something blinding you guys. Calvinism is so hopelessly self contradictory that it should be the easiest thing in the world to debunk and it is, but it as if there is this wall, or some sort of barrier that prevents many from seeing it. I really don't get it! It's not as if you guys are stupid, you're obviously not!
To me, the Calvinistic view of God is of one who is more glorified than in your view. I've experienced both sides of the fence; the grass is much greener over here...

So why is it that you can see that 2+2=7 is not correct but you can't understand that if Knight was hypocritical because there was no other option other than to be hypocritical then to say that he had a choice in the matter is self contradictory! Even if you say he wanted to be hypocritical then that is meaningless because the very fact that he wanted to is itself a predestined unalterable fact, right? It's not as if you guys can say that Knight's personal history has led him down a path that resulted in the evil desire within him that caused him to consciously decide to be hypocritical because you only compound your own logical problem. Everything that Knight has ever thought, or done, or said, or felt, or experienced in any way was not due to his own action but due to God's predestined will being performed. In a Calvinist worldview Knight is a puppet on strings as are we all and to insist that one repent in order to be within God's will is self contradictory and in fact could only be done if God Himself pulled the repent string in His cosmic puppet show. Knight would have no more culpability for his actions than Pinocchio would.
So what if God predestines? Why is that such a "stumbling block" to you? Why can't you just understand the simple fact that man has reponsibility and God is absolutely sovereign? The Bible teaches both, yet you find that hard to believe. To you, it's gotta be one or the other.

Z Man
May 27th, 2004, 11:40 PM
Knight,

Originally posted by Z Man

Did God give Job his afflictions? Did God give Egypt thier plagues? Did God afflict the Israelites with much turmoil in the desert after fleeing from Egypt? Did God blind Zach, the father of John? Did God blind Paul? Did God cripple all those people that Jesus had to heal? Does God not do these things to be glorified?

Also, your horrible Bible interpreting skills were caught red-handed by boogerhead in posts #52 and #58. I find it amusing how you run away from your 'problems'...

Hilston
May 27th, 2004, 11:50 PM
Z Man, I'm still waiting to see if Clete is going to answer my questions. If you see him, please give him a nudge.

Z Man
May 27th, 2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Z Man, I'm still waiting to see if Clete is going to answer my questions. If you see him, please give him a nudge.
Roger doger. :thumb:

Hey, did you add me to your yahoo instant messenger?

God_Is_Truth
May 28th, 2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

To me, the Calvinistic view of God is of one who is more glorified than in your view. I've experienced both sides of the fence; the grass is much greener over here...

So what if God predestines? Why is that such a "stumbling block" to you? Why can't you just understand the simple fact that man has reponsibility and God is absolutely sovereign? The Bible teaches both, yet you find that hard to believe. To you, it's gotta be one or the other.

let's suppose i have a friend named bob. bob has a son named joe. now one day, bob sees something he wants in a store but can't afford. so he takes joe to the store, grabs both his hands and forces him (joe) to grab the item he (bob) wants and put it in his (joe's) pocket. now please tell me, who is responsible for the theft? joe, or bob?

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

let's suppose i have a friend named bob. bob has a son named joe. now one day, bob sees something he wants in a store but can't afford. so he takes joe to the store, grabs both his hands and forces him (joe) to grab the item he (bob) wants and put it in his (joe's) pocket. now please tell me, who is responsible for the theft? joe, or bob?
Ummmm......both?

How's that story have anything to do with this discussion? Do you believe God is sovereign, or that man is sovereign? Can you understand that the Bible tells us that there is a mystery concerning man's responsibility, yet God is absolutely sovereign at the same time?

Hilston
May 28th, 2004, 12:39 AM
God_is_truth writes:
let's suppose i have a friend named bob. bob has a son named joe. now one day, bob sees something he wants in a store but can't afford. so he takes joe to the store, grabs both his hands and forces him (joe) to grab the item he (bob) wants and put it in his (joe's) pocket. now please tell me, who is responsible for the theft? joe, or bob?If Bob is God and Joe is His Son, then neither are responsible, because, as God, He answers to no one.

God_is_Truth, have you ever chosen something you did not want to choose?

Jim

Big Finn
May 28th, 2004, 03:59 AM
Do you believe God is sovereign, or that man is sovereign?

Do you Calvinists believe that the earth is the entirety, or vast majority, of God's creation? Do you believe it is the center of God's creation? That mankind is God's only sentient creation?

Turbo
May 28th, 2004, 05:53 AM
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. Romans 7:14-16

Clete
May 28th, 2004, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Clete-
Hell is not reserved for those who reject Christ. Hell was made for Satan, and all the angels that followed him, in their rejection of God. Yes, people go there too, but it was not made for them. It is not reserved for them, but they go ther if they reject Christ's death [and therefore accept their own].
Don't be stupid.
I was not writing a precise theological tretise when I wrote that post. My meaning was clear. Such nit-picking is a waste of everyones time.
The fact is that people who refuse to glorify God will go to Hell.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
May 28th, 2004, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

Z Man, I'm still waiting to see if Clete is going to answer my questions. If you see him, please give him a nudge.

See post 56

God_Is_Truth
May 28th, 2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

Ummmm......both?

How's that story have anything to do with this discussion? Do you believe God is sovereign, or that man is sovereign? Can you understand that the Bible tells us that there is a mystery concerning man's responsibility, yet God is absolutely sovereign at the same time?

you would honestly hold joe responsible for something he was forced to do? something he had absolutely no say in whatsoever?

i'll tie in the relevence shortly.

God_Is_Truth
May 28th, 2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

God_is_truth writes:If Bob is God and Joe is His Son, then neither are responsible, because, as God, He answers to no one.

God_is_Truth, have you ever chosen something you did not want to choose?

Jim

you are partly right in your answer. but ignoring what they may stand for, just in this example, who would you hold responsible for the crime? bob or joe?

have i ever chosen something i didn't want to? good grief yes! i may have wanted to wear my blue shirt with a hole in it to chruch when i was a kid but my parents would have made my choose another one. so, i would have had to choose to wear a shirt i didn't want to wear. i chose something i didn't want to choose. i had to choose it.

Clete
May 28th, 2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

Ummmm......both?

How's that story have anything to do with this discussion? Do you believe God is sovereign, or that man is sovereign? Can you understand that the Bible tells us that there is a mystery concerning man's responsibility, yet God is absolutely sovereign at the same time?

How does the freedom to choose equate to being soveriegn?

Are you saying that God does not have the ability to soveriegnly delegate to us the authority to choose on our own the way we live our lives? If the authority to live our lives is granted to us by God wouldn't that mean our ability to freely choose is based upon God's soveriegnty?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

Just those events that would most benefit God's desire to save as many people as possible. A heinous evil murder of an innocent person prevents the salvation of that person forever. The stubbing of a toe does not.It's strange you keep saying this.

Why doesn't a 26 year old person have a chance to become saved?

How on earth do you define "chance"?

When people are murdered or killed in a car crash or die quickly or a heart attack or brain aneurism do you view them as not having a chance for salvation? I sure don't!

Every person with a reasonable mental capacity has a chance and or responsibility to choose life. There is no guarantee that any of us will live to any specific age. It is all of our own responsibilities to make wise choices.... any day could be our last day.

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

Knight,


Also, your horrible Bible interpreting skills were caught red-handed by boogerhead in posts #52 and #58. I find it amusing how you run away from your 'problems'... Z Man you can think whatever you like.

But as far as I can tell boogerheads post(s) only further proved my point that we have the ability to reject God's will.

I wasn't going to argue against a post that agree's with my own point.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Big Finn

Do you Calvinists believe that the earth is the entirety, or vast majority, of God's creation? Do you believe it is the center of God's creation? That mankind is God's only sentient creation?
That's the exact opposite of what we believe. Personally, I believe that God Himself is the center of His "universe"; we are just the mere 'public display' of His own infatuation with Himself. In other words, God 'went public' with His own glory when He created everything.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

you would honestly hold joe responsible for something he was forced to do? something he had absolutely no say in whatsoever?
Look, bottom line, God predestines and is absolutely sovereign, yet He still holds us accountable. You seem to have a big problem with this, but don't take it out on me or my 'doctrine'; it's totally biblical that God predestines and is absolutely sovereign, yet He still holds us accountable for our actions.

Romans 9:18-20 (NLT)
So you see, God shows mercy to some just because he wants to, and he chooses to make some people refuse to listen. Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not listening? Haven't they simply done what he made them do?" No, don't say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to criticize God?

Romans 9:18-20 (The Message)
All we're saying is that God has the first word, initiating the action in which we play our part for good or ill. Are you going to object, "So how can God blame us for anything since he's in charge of everything? If the big decisions are already made, what say do we have in it?" Who in the world do you think you are to second-guess God? Do you for one moment suppose any of us knows enough to call God into question?

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

How does the freedom to choose equate to being soveriegn?

Are you saying that God does not have the ability to soveriegnly delegate to us the authority to choose on our own the way we live our lives? If the authority to live our lives is granted to us by God wouldn't that mean our ability to freely choose is based upon God's soveriegnty?

Resting in Him,
Clete
Clete,

God did that in Genesis, remember? And look what happened...

The fact is, if God just threw us the "keys" to do whatever we wish and to choose to do whatever we please, we'd take them and run with them. Like the parable of the prodigal son, we'd use that freedom to please ourself, not to glorify God. We are slaves to sin. We are not free and do not have free wills. Our will is to do what we can for ourself, not to do anything for God.

That's why He needs to save, or free us from our bondage in sin. He chooses whom He wills to do this too. It's called election. He chooses based upon His good will and pleasure, not on anything we have done.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Knight

Z Man you can think whatever you like.

But as far as I can tell boogerheads post(s) only further proved my point that we have the ability to reject God's will.

I wasn't going to argue against a post that agree's with my own point.
Ummmm.... on the contrary, if you actually read those posts, you would of noticed that she unveiled the true context of Proverbs 1:24 that you used to support your fanatical view that men can thwart God's will. Those verses were not in reference to God's will, but rather, in rejecting "wisdom". Surely, you know the difference, no?

BTW, you have yet to reply to this:

Originally posted by Z Man

Did God give Job his afflictions? Did God give Egypt thier plagues? Did God afflict the Israelites with much turmoil in the desert after fleeing from Egypt? Did God blind Zach, the father of John? Did God blind Paul? Did God cripple all those people that Jesus had to heal? Does God not do these things to be glorified?
If God inclined these afflictions upon all of these people (and trust me, there are several, numerous more examples), then what makes you think that a woman declaring that God gave her cancer is a bad thing? If God willed the suffering and death of His own Son, why is it wrong for Him to do it to a simple, sinful human being? Are we not His creation? Can He not do to us as He pleases? Who are you to tell Him He's wrong?

Big Finn
May 28th, 2004, 01:11 PM
That's the exact opposite of what we believe. Personally, I believe that God Himself is the center of His "universe"; we are just the mere 'public display' of His own infatuation with Himself. In other words, God 'went public' with His own glory when He created everything.

Huh? What does your answer have to do with what I asked?

Amazing that you actually believe that God is infatuated with Himself. I find this to be incredible. The picture you have of God is one that portrays Him about as negatively as is humanly possible.

Infatuate from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: 2in·fat·u·ate
Pronunciation: -"wAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: Latin infatuatus, past participle of infatuare, from in- + fatuus fatuous
1 : to cause to be foolish : deprive of sound judgment
2 : to inspire with a foolish or extravagant love or admiration

In your eyes God is inspired with a foolish and extravagant love and admiration for Himself. In other words He is a spoiled brat with omnipotent power. That is nothing more than blasphemy as far as I'm concerned. I don't know how many other people will see it that way, but I certainly do. That you would worship someone that you see as being that way being speaks volumes about you.

It does, however, explain your insistence upon Calvinistic theology. I don't know if you had this idea of God before you heard of Calvinism and that's why you became a Calvinist, or if you developed this picture of God from Calvinism itself, but from what I can see of Calvinism it is either one or the other.

I didn't think I'd ever see a Calvinist actually admit to worshipping this kind of God, but I now have. Thank you Zman. You have proven everything I have ever suspected about Calvinism to be true.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Big Finn

Huh? What does your answer have to do with what I asked?
I assumed your question to be asking "is creation/mankind the center of God's universe", to which I replied, no.

Amazing that you actually believe that God is infatuated with Himself. I find this to be incredible. The picture you have of God is one that portrays Him about as negatively as is humanly possible.

In your eyes God is inspired with a foolish and extravagant love and admiration for Himself. In other words He is a spoiled brat with omnipotent power. That is nothing more than blasphemy as far as I'm concerned. I don't know how many other people will see it that way, but I certainly do. That you would worship someone that you see as being that way being speaks volumes about you.
If God loved anything more than Himself, why would we even bother worshipping Him?

Big Finn
May 28th, 2004, 01:59 PM
If God loved anything more than Himself, why would we even bother worshipping Him?

I guess you find self-infatuation, which is nothing more than selfishness, worthy of emulation and to be the motivating factor in God. I am simply amazed and could hardly believe my eyes as I have read your last couple of posts.

Funny how the definition of sin, selfishness, is the root of your picture of God isn't it? Don't you find that to be disturbing in the least? You believe God is sinful. ***shakes head in amazement***

Paul said that there would come a time when people would not accept sound doctrine, and that men hold the knowledge of God in unrighteousness. Are his words ever true.

If God was truly a self-absorbed, self-infatutated being He wouldn't have sacrificed His Son to save a small portion of an ungrateful world. He would have just wiped out His mistake and started over. He would have cared less about the beings He had created. He wouldn't have lifted a finger to help them.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Big Finn

I guess you find self-infatuation, which is nothing more than selfishness, worthy of emulation and to be the motivating factor in God. I am simply amazed and could hardly believe my eyes as I have read your last couple of posts.

Funny how the definition of sin, selfishness, is the root of your picture of God isn't it? Don't you find that to be disturbing in the least? You believe God is sinful. ***shakes head in amazement***
God loving Himself is far from being selfish; in fact, it's the very thing we find our joy in - His glory.

Revelations 4:11
"You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created."

If God was truly a self-absorbed, self-infatutated being He wouldn't have sacrificed His Son to save a small portion of an ungrateful world.
Why do you think Christ came to die? For our glory? HAHA! Yeah right...

Isaiah 48:11
For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it ... And I will not give My glory to another.

philosophizer
May 28th, 2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Hilston
Knight, what would you think of someone who had a chance to do something very simple to thwart the attacks, and knowing fully was about to transpire, nonetheless did not do what he could to stop it?

Jim wrote: He could have brought a microburst along at the right moment and caused the plane to plunge into the bay, saving thousands of lives. None of these override anyone's freewill.



I think all this talk about God preventing what we view as terrible catastrophies seems to ignore that all things should have consequences.

Sin has consequences. And because the world is a VAST interwoven network of everybody's actions, the consequences are all interdependent.

If we interrupt that network at any point, we are being unfair to the consequences.

Basically, if we follow that way of thinking, then God should have let go of the atoms holding one of the tree trunks in Eden together so it would fall on Eve and kill her before she was able to eat the fruit.

But God doesn't do that sort of thing. God allows us to suffer the consequences of our disobedience. That seems to be the main lesson in life. For God to intervene in the manner Hilston suggests might not violate "free will." But it certainly violates what God seems to want for our lives: the learning experience of consequences. It would make no sense for Him to apply it to events like 9-11 if He wasn't going to apply it to Adam and Eve's disobedience.

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Z Man
Those verses were not in reference to God's will, but rather, in rejecting "wisdom". Surely, you know the difference, no?LOL... :chuckle: Z Man... IF God programs us in every way..... then every thought, every action, every.... EVERYTHING is God's will! Including our wisdom or lack thereof.

Therefore, if we are rejecting His wisdom we are using a "will" apart from His.

You continue...
BTW, you have yet to reply to this:

If God inclined these afflictions upon all of these people (and trust me, there are several, numerous more examples), then what makes you think that a woman declaring that God gave her cancer is a bad thing? If God willed the suffering and death of His own Son, why is it wrong for Him to do it to a simple, sinful human being? Are we not His creation? Can He not do to us as He pleases? Who are you to tell Him He's wrong? Simple... the Bible tells the story of God creating man and woman perfect.... no sin.... no cancer... no death. Then, due to man's rebellion against God sin and death entered the world. It is sin that is to blame for the women's cancer not God.

This is a fundamentally simple biblical concept that your sick twisted theology fails to see.

boogerhead
May 28th, 2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Z Man you can think whatever you like.

But as far as I can tell boogerheads post(s) only further proved my point that we have the ability to reject God's will.

I wasn't going to argue against a post that agree's with my own point.


hey buddy that's a big fat negative...my intentions were not to support your stand but instead to suggest that you re-read the verses you pulled out in context of the verses around them to see that they do NOT support what you are claiming...proverbs 1:24 is about the dangers of rejecting wisdom...not God...you can't just pull out one verse that has stuff about rejection and assume that it's about rejecting God...when God calls us, He does so with an irresistable love and mercy...

the other verse from john also need to be read in context of it's surrounding verses...Jesus is saying that we can't rely on just our understanding and study of scripture to have life b/c He is the very one of whom these scriptures speak...He's explaining that just relying on scripture, thereby "refusing" him, will not grant life...just b/c the words "refuse me" are in the verse doesn't mean that it supports your claim...

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 02:40 PM
Desiring God - by John Piper

Chapter 1: The Happiness of God

The chief end of God is to glorify God
and enjoy himself forever.
The reason this may sound strange is that we are more accustomed to think about our duty than God's design. And when we do ask about God's design we are too prone to describe it with ourselves at the center of God's affections. We may say, for example, his design is to redeem the world. Or to save sinners. Or to restore creation. Or the like.

But God's saving designs are penultimate, not ultimate. Redemption, salvation, and restoration are not God's ultimate goal. These he performs for the sake of something greater: namely, the enjoyment he has in glorifying himself.

If God were not infinitely devoted to the preservation, display, and enjoyment of his own glory, we could have no hope of finding happiness in him. But if he does in fact employ all his sovereign power and infinite wisdom to maximize the enjoyment of his own glory, then we have a foundation on which to stand and rejoice.


God's Happiness Is in Himself

God employs his sovereignty to display the great object of his delight, his glory, the beauty of his manifold perfections.

He does all that he does to magnify the worth of his glory.

He would be unrighteous if he valued anything more than what is supremely valuable, namely, himself.
I began this chapter by saying that God is uppermost in his own affections:


The chief end of God is to glorify God
and enjoy himself forever.


What we have seen so far is that God is absolutely sovereign over the world and that he can therefore do anything he pleases, and is therefore not a frustrated God, but a deeply happy God, rejoicing in all his works ( Psalm 104:31), when he considers them in relation to redemptive history.

What we have not yet seen is how this unshakable happiness of God is indeed a happiness in himself. We have seen that God has the sovereign power to do whatever he pleases, but we have not yet seen specifically what it is that pleases him. Why is it that contemplating the mosaic of redemptive history delights the heart of God? Is this not idolatry-for God to delight in something other than himself?

So now we must ask: What does make God happy? What is it about redemptive history that delights the heart of God? The way to answer this question is to survey what God pursues in all his works. If we could discover what one thing God pursues in everything he does, we would know what he delights in most. We would know what was uppermost in his affections.


God Delights in His Glory

In Appendix 1, I present a brief survey of the high points of redemptive history in order to discover God's ultimate goal in all he does. If what follows seems out of sync with Scripture, I urge you to examine the supporting evidence of that appendix .

My conclusion there is that God's own glory is uppermost in his own affections. In everything he does, his purpose is to preserve and display that glory. To say his glory is uppermost in his own affections means that he puts a greater value an it than on anything else. He delights in his glory above all things.

Glory is not easy to define. It is like beauty. How would you define beauty? Some things we have to point at rather than define. But let me try. God's glory is the beauty of his manifold perfections. It can refer to the bright and awesome radiance that sometimes breaks forth in visible manifestations. Or it can refer to the infinite moral excellence of his character. In either case it signifies a reality of infinite greatness and worth. C. S. Lewis helps us with his own effort to point at It:


Nature never taught me that there exists a God of glory and of infinite majesty. I had to learn that in other ways. But nature gave the word glory a meaning for me. I still do not know where else I could have found one. I do not see how the "fear" of God could have ever meant to me anything but the lowest prudential efforts to be safe, if I had never seen certain ominous ravines and unapproachable crags.

God's ultimate goal therefore is to preserve and display his infinite and awesome greatness and worth, that is, his glory.

God has many other goals in what he does. But none of them is more ultimate than this. They are all subordinate. God's overwhelming passion is to exalt the value of his glory. To that end he seeks to display it, to oppose those who belittle it, and to vindicate it from all contempt. It is clearly the uppermost reality in his affections. He loves his glory infinitely.

This is the same as saying: He loves himself infinitely. Or: He himself is uppermost in his own affections. A moment's reflection reveals the inexorable justice of this fact. God would be unrighteous (just as we would) if he valued anything more than what is supremely valuable. But he himself is supremely valuable. If he did not take infinite delight in the worth of his own glory he would be unrighteous. For it is right to take delight in a person in proportion to the excellence of that person's glory.



God Delights in the Glory of His Son

"Christ reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature." (Heb 1:3)

Therefore the Father delights infinitely in the Son.

"The heavens are telling the glory of God." (Psalms 19:1) Therefore God delights in creation as the spillover of the exuberance he has for his own excellence.
Another moment's reflection reminds us that this is exactly what we affirm when we affirm the eternal divinity of God's Son. We stand at the foothills of mystery in all these things. But the Scriptures have given us some glimpses of the heights. They teach us that the Son of God is himself God: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). "In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" ( Colossians 2:9).

Therefore when the Father beheld the Son from all eternity, he was beholding the exact representation of himself. As Hebrews 1:3 says, the Son "reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature." And 2 Corinthians 4:4 speaks of "the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God."

From these texts we learn that through all eternity God the Father has beheld the image of his own glory perfectly represented in the person of his Son. Therefore one of the best ways to think about God's infinite enjoyment of his own glory is to think of it as the delight he has in his Son who is the perfect reflection of that glory (see John 17:24-26).

When Christ entered the world, God the Father said, "This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3 :17) . As God the Father contemplates the image of his own glory in the person of his Son, he is infinitely happy. "Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights" ( Isaiah 42:1 ).

Within the triune Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), God has been uppermost in his own affections for all eternity. This belongs to his very nature, for he has begotten and loved the Son from all eternity. Therefore God has been supremely and eternally happy in the fellowship of the Trinity.


God Delights in the Glory of His Work

In creation God "went public" with the glory that reverberates joyfully between the Father and the Son! There is something about the fullness of God's joy that inclines it to overflow. There is an expansive quality to his joy. It wants to share itself. The impulse to create the world was not from weakness, as though God were lacking in some perfection which creation could supply. "It is no argument of the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain, that it is inclined to over flow."

God loves to behold his glory reflected in his works. So the eternal happiness of the triune God spilled over in the work of creation and redemption. And since this original happiness was God's delight in his own glory, therefore the happiness that he has in all his works of creation and redemption is nothing other than a delight in his own glory. This is why God has done all things, from creation to consummation, for the preservation and display of his glory. All his works are simply the spillover of his infinite exuberance for his own excellence.


Is God for Us or for Himself?

God does all things for his own sake. "For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it . . . my glory I will not give to another." (Isaiah 48:11)

This is love, because in pursuing the praise of his name in the hearts of his people, he commands the very thing that completes our joy.

God is the one being in the universe for whom self-exaltation is the highest virtue and the most loving act.
But now the question arises: If God is so utterly enamored of his own glory, how can he be a God of love? If he unwaveringly does all things for his own sake, how then can we have any hope that he will do anything for our sake? Does not the apostle say, "Love seeks not its own" ( 1 Corinthians 13: 5) ?

Now we begin to see how the issue of God's happiness can make or break the philosophy of Christian Hedonism. If God were so self-centered that he had no inclination to love his -creatures, then Christian Hedonism would be dead. Christian Hedonism depends on the open arms of God. It depends on the readiness of God to accept and save and satisfy the heart of all who seek their joy in him. But if God is on an ego trip and out of reach, then it is in vain that we pursue our happiness in him.

Is God for us or for himself? Precisely in answering this question we will discover the great foundation for Christian Hedonism.


Is He Vain Or Loving To Command Our Praise?

The Bible is replete with commands to praise God. God commands it because this is the ultimate goal of all he does-"to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed" (2 Thessalonians 1:10). Three times in Ephesians 1 this great aim is proclaimed: God "predestined us in love to be his sons . . . to the praise of the glory of his grace!" ( 1:5-6); "We . . . have been predestined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory" (1:12); the Holy Spirit "is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory" ( 1:14).

All the different ways God has chosen to display his glory in creation and redemption seem to reach their culmination in the praises of his redeemed people. God governs the world with glory precisely that he might be admired, marveled at, exalted and praised. The climax of his happiness is the delight he takes in the echoes of his excellence in the praises of the saints.

But again and again I have found that people stumble over this truth. People do not like to hear that God is uppermost in his own affections, or that he does all things for his own glory, or that he exalts himself and seeks the praise of men.

Why? There are at least two reasons. One is that we just don't like people who are like that. The other is that the Bible teaches us not to be like that. Let's examine these objections and see if they can apply to God.


Is God A Second-Hander?

First, we just don't like people who seem to be enamored by their own intelligence or strength or skill or good looks or wealth. We don't like scholars who try to show off their specialized knowledge, or who recite for us all their recent publications. We don't like businessmen who talk about how shrewdly they have invested their money and how they stayed right on top of the market to get in low and out high. We don't like children to play one-upmanship (Mine's bigger! Mine's faster! Mine's prettier!). And unless we are one of them, we disapprove of men and women who dress not functionally and simply, but to attract attention with the latest style.

Why don't we like all that? I think at root it's because those people are inauthentic. They are what Ayn Rand calls "second-handers." They don't live from the joy that comes through achieving what they value for its own sake. Instead, they live secondhand from the compliments of others. They have one eye on their action and one on their audience. We simply do not admire second-handers. We admire people who are secure and composed enough that they don't need to shore up their weaknesses and compensate for their deficiencies by trying to get compliments.

It stands to reason, then, that any teaching that puts God in the category of a second-hander will be unacceptable to Christians. And for many the teaching that God seeks to show off his glory and get the praise of men does in fact put him in the category of a second-hander. But should it?

One thing is certain: God is not weak and has no deficiencies. "All things are from him and through him and to him" (Romans 11:36). "He is not served by human hands as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything" ( Acts 17:25). Everything that exists owes its existence to him, and no one can add anything to him which is not already flowing from him. Therefore God's zeal to seek his own glory and to be praised by men cannot be owing to his need to shore up some weakness or compensate for some deficiency. He may look, at first glance, like one of the second-handers, but he is not like them, and the superficial similarity must be explained another way.


"Love Seeks Not Its Own" -- Except In The Joy Of Others.

The rules of humility that belong to a creature cannot apply in the same way to its Creator.

Ultimate self-denial would be idolatry in God.

By upholding his own glory he upholds the groud of our joy. And that is love.
The second reason people stumble over the teaching that God exalts his own glory and seeks to be praised by his people is that the Bible teaches us not to be like that. For example, the Bible says that "Love seeks not its own" ( 1 Corinthians 13:5). How can God be loving and yet be utterly devoted to "seeking his own" glory and praise and joy? How can God be for us if he is so utterly for himself?

The answer I propose is this: Because God is unique as an all-glorious, totally self-sufficient Being, he must be for himself if he is to be for us. The rules of humility that belong to a creature cannot apply in the same way to its Creator. If God should turn away from himself as the Source of infinite joy, he would cease to be God. He would deny the infinite worth of his own glory. He would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry.

This would be no gain for us. For where can we go when our God has become unrighteous? Where will we find a Rock of integrity in the universe when the heart of God has ceased to value supremely the supremely valuable? Where shall we turn with our adoration when God himself has forsaken the claims of infinite worth and beauty?

No, we do not turn God's self-exaltation into love by demanding that God cease to be God. Instead we must come to see that God is love precisely because he relentlessly pursues the praises of his name in the hearts of his people.


Delight Is Incomplete Until It Is Expressed.

Consider this question: In view of God's infinite power and wisdom and beauty, what would his love to a human being involve? Or to put it another way: What could God give us to enjoy that would prove him most loving? There is only one possible answer: himself! If he withholds himself from our contemplation and companionship, no matter what else he gives us, he is not loving.

Now we are on the brink of what for me was a life-changing discovery. What do we all do when we are given or shown something beautiful or excellent? We praise it! We praise new little babies: "Oh, look at that nice round head! And all that hair! And her hands, aren't they perfect!" We praise a lover after a long absence: "Your eyes are like a cloudless sky! Your hair like forest silk!" We praise a grand slam in the bottom of the ninth when we are down by three. We praise the October trees along the banks of the St. Croix.

But the great discovery for me, as I said, came when reading "A Word about Praise" in C. S. Lewis's Reflections on the Psalms. His recorded thoughts-born from wrestling with the idea that God not only wants our praise but commands it--bear looking at again, in fuller form:


But the most obvious fact about praise-whether of God or any thing-strangely escaped me. I thought of it in terms of compliment, approval, or the giving of honor. I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise unless (sometimes even if) shyness or the fear of boring others is deliberately brought in to check it. The world rings with praise-lovers praising their mistresses, readers their favorite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their favorite game-praise of weather, wines, dishes, actors, motors, horses, colleges, countries, historical personages, children, flowers, mountains, rare stamps, rare beetles, even sometimes politicians or scholars. I had not noticed how the humblest, and at the same time most balanced and capacious, minds, praised most, while the cranks, misfits and malcontents praised least . . .

I had not noticed either that just as men spontaneously praise what ever they value, so they spontaneously urge us to join them in praising it: "Isn't she lovely? Wasn't it glorious? Don't you think that magnificent?" The Psalmists in telling everyone to praise God are doing what all men do when they speak of what they care about. My whole, more general, difficulty about the praise of God depended on my absurdly denying to us, as regards the supremely Valuable, what we delight to do, what indeed we can't help doing, about everything else we value.

I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed.


There is the solution! We praise what we enjoy because the delight is incomplete until it is expressed in praise. If we were not allowed to speak of what we value, and celebrate what we love, and praise what we admire, our joy would not be full. So if God loves us enough to make our joy full, he must not only give us himself; he must also win from us the praise of our hearts-not because he needs to shore up some weakness in himself or compensate for some deficiency, but because he loves us and seeks the fullness of our joy that can be found only in knowing and praising him, the most magnificent of all Beings. If he is truly for us he must be for himself!

God is the one Being in all the universe for whom seeking his own praise is the ultimately loving act. For him, self-exaltation is the highest virtue. When he does all things ``for the praise of his glory," he preserves for us and offers to us the only thing in all the world which can satisfy our longings. God is for us! And the foundation of this love is that God has been, is now, and always will be, for himself.


Summary

The happiness of God in God is the foundation of our happiness in God.

If God did not joyfully uphold and display his glory the ground of our joy would be gone.

God's pursuit of praise from us and our pursuit of pleasure in him are in perfect harmony. For God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.
God is absolutely sovereign. "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases!" (Psalm 115:3). Therefore he is not frustrated. He rejoices in all his works when he contemplates them as colors of the magnificent mosaic of redemptive history. He is an unshakably happy God.

His happiness is the delight he has in himself. Before creation he rejoiced in the image of his glory in the person of his Son. Then the joy of God "went public" in the works of creation and redemption. These works delight the heart of God because they reflect his glory. He does everything he does to preserve and display that glory, for in this his soul rejoices.

All the works of God culminate in the praises of his redeemed people. The climax of his happiness is the delight he takes in the echoes of his excellence in the praises of the saints. This praise is the consummation of our own joy in God. Therefore God's pursuit of praise from us and our pursuit of pleasure in him are the same pursuit. This is the great gospel!



-taken from here (http://www.desiringgod.org/dg/id6.htm)

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Simple... the Bible tells the story of God creating man and woman perfect.... no sin.... no cancer... no death. Then, due to man's rebellion against God sin and death entered the world. It is sin that is to blame for the women's cancer not God.

This is a fundamentally simple biblical concept that your sick twisted theology fails to see.
What did Christ do to ever be "crushed" by God?

Clete
May 28th, 2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Clete,

God did that in Genesis, remember? And look what happened...

The fact is, if God just threw us the "keys" to do whatever we wish and to choose to do whatever we please, we'd take them and run with them. Like the parable of the prodigal son, we'd use that freedom to please ourself, not to glorify God. We are slaves to sin. We are not free and do not have free wills. Our will is to do what we can for ourself, not to do anything for God.

That's why He needs to save, or free us from our bondage in sin. He chooses whom He wills to do this too. It's called election. He chooses based upon His good will and pleasure, not on anything we have done.

Z Man,

Are you awake? Hello!!! Anybody home?
Have you completely lost your mind? Are you trying to tell me that mankind had freewill up until Noah's flood and then all the predestination stuff started? Is that really what you are saying?
Is that your whole argument that is supposed to somehow defeat my point that man being given a free will does not usurp God sovereignty?
Please tell me that you took one to many cold pills before you wrote this post! Please tell me that I have not wasted my respect on someone capable of such complete lunacy as this! Surely you can see that in one post you've completely destroyed the entire Calvinist theological construct!

Here's the bottom line. If Adam and Eve had a free will, so do I. If Adam's freedom didn't usurp God's sovereignty then neither does mine. And most importantly if even one single person (including God) has free will then there is nothing in the Bible that could possibly prove that I do not. It's an all or nothing prospect, if the Calvinist brand of predestination is true then ANYTHING, good, bad, ugly, or indifferent ever happens at all, then it is because God made it happen, period. Therefore it is God and God alone who is responsible for what happens not you not me not Hitler or and one else. Punishment of even one single sin would therefore be fundamentally unjust and cruel and God would be a liar and a sadist. Calvinism is foolishness to the absolute degree, worse even than atheism! You say that you think that Calvinism paints a more glorious picture of God! That makes me want to vomit! Perhaps it's a more glorious picture of God to Satan! The Calvinist God cannot change, it cannot feel, think, or move. Your god resembles a stone idol more than the living God of the Bible. How can such a god be glorious at all? It's revolting!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Poly
May 28th, 2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

How does the freedom to choose equate to being soveriegn?


This is a question I've asked myself over and over. I don't get why a sovereign God must mean a God that preprogrammed everything.

Our kids make their own choices. But it still doesn't make Hubby nor myself any less sovereign over our household.

Poly
May 28th, 2004, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Knight

the Bible tells the story of God creating man and woman perfect.... no sin.... no cancer... no death. Then, due to man's rebellion against God sin and death entered the world. It is sin that is to blame for the women's cancer not God.


But surely God can't be that powerful can He? I mean to trust that His glory will come about despite sin that entered the world? That's quite a bit of power over all. Maybe God is the weaker Calvinistic God who had to make sure that glory would be given to Himself by programming it ahead of time :think:

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

Are you awake? Hello!!! Anybody home?
Have you completely lost your mind? Are you trying to tell me that mankind had freewill up until Noah's flood and then all the predestination stuff started?
What?! No! Absolutely not! I don't know what gave you that idea, but I'm sorry if I mislead you into thinking that...

Surely you can see that in one post you've completely destroyed the entire Calvinist theological construct!
Every 'Calvinist' I know would agree with this:


The fact is, if God just threw us the "keys" to do whatever we wish and to choose to do whatever we please, we'd take them and run with them. Like the parable of the prodigal son, we'd use that freedom to please ourself, not to glorify God. We are slaves to sin. We are not free and do not have free wills. Our will is to do what we can for ourself, not to do anything for God.

That's why He needs to save, or free us from our bondage in sin. He chooses whom He wills to do this too. It's called election. He chooses based upon His good will and pleasure, not on anything we have done.

Here's the bottom line. If Adam and Eve had a free will, so do I.
Sorry buddy. Adam blew it:

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.

If Adam's freedom didn't usurp God's sovereignty then neither does mine.
I never meant to imply that Adam had a total free will apart from God; what happened in Eden was ordained - it was all a part of God's plan.

What happened with Adam is sort of a reverse of what happens to those whom Christ saves. In Adam, he went from closeness to God to total seperation. He gave up his freedom for slavery to sin. However, in contrast, those whom Christ has saved are saved from slavery to sin and are brought into freedom in Him, our Savior.

And most importantly if even one single person (including God) has free will then there is nothing in the Bible that could possibly prove that I do not.
So if God has it, your suppose to have it too? I don't see you parting seas or rivers, or answering people's prayers, or creating things out of nothing, by your spoken word...

:rolleyes:

It's an all or nothing prospect, if the Calvinist brand of predestination is true then ANYTHING, good, bad, ugly, or indifferent ever happens at all, then it is because God made it happen, period. Therefore it is God and God alone who is responsible for what happens not you not me not Hitler or and one else. Punishment of even one single sin would therefore be fundamentally unjust and cruel and God would be a liar and a sadist.
This type of mockery and objection to God's sovereignty sounds familiar... :think: ....

AH yes! Paul rebuked people of your type:

Romans 9:18-20 (NLT)
So you see, God shows mercy to some just because he wants to, and he chooses to make some people refuse to listen. Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not listening? Haven't they simply done what he made them do?" No, don't say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to criticize God?

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by boogerhead

hey buddy that's a big fat negative...my intentions were not to support your stand That may not have been your intention but it certainly was your outcome.

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Z Man
-taken from here (http://www.desiringgod.org/dg/id6.htm) Please don't copy and paste huge volumes of text from others websites. (that has been a long standing rule - I am not picking on you).

If you have a point to make.... make it yourself!

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

Are you awake? Hello!!! Anybody home?
Have you completely lost your mind? Are you trying to tell me that mankind had freewill up until Noah's flood and then all the predestination stuff started? Is that really what you are saying?
Is that your whole argument that is supposed to somehow defeat my point that man being given a free will does not usurp God sovereignty?
Please tell me that you took one to many cold pills before you wrote this post! Please tell me that I have not wasted my respect on someone capable of such complete lunacy as this! Surely you can see that in one post you've completely destroyed the entire Calvinist theological construct!

Here's the bottom line. If Adam and Eve had a free will, so do I. If Adam's freedom didn't usurp God's sovereignty then neither does mine. And most importantly if even one single person (including God) has free will then there is nothing in the Bible that could possibly prove that I do not. It's an all or nothing prospect, if the Calvinist brand of predestination is true then ANYTHING, good, bad, ugly, or indifferent ever happens at all, then it is because God made it happen, period. Therefore it is God and God alone who is responsible for what happens not you not me not Hitler or and one else. Punishment of even one single sin would therefore be fundamentally unjust and cruel and God would be a liar and a sadist. Calvinism is foolishness to the absolute degree, worse even than atheism! You say that you think that Calvinism paints a more glorious picture of God! That makes me want to vomit! Perhaps it's a more glorious picture of God to Satan! The Calvinist God cannot change, it cannot feel, think, or move. Your god resembles a stone idol more than the living God of the Bible. How can such a god be glorious at all? It's revolting!

Resting in Him,
Clete POTD :first: (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14685)

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

What did Christ do to ever be "crushed" by God? :confused:

Clete
May 28th, 2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Sorry buddy. Adam blew it:

I never meant to imply that Adam had a total free will apart from God; what happened in Eden was ordained - it was all a part of God's plan.

How is it that you cannot see the contradiction in these two statements?

According to the 2nd statement Adam's blowing it was ordained to happen. It was God's will. So Adam didn't blow it, he did the exact "God glorifying" thing that he was suppossed to do. He didn't have any choice in the matter, it was already settled before he drew his first breath!



Romans 9:18-20 (NLT)
So you see, God shows mercy to some just because he wants to, and he chooses to make some people refuse to listen. Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not listening? Haven't they simply done what he made them do?" No, don't say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to criticize God?
The New Living Translation was translated by Calvinists. Quoting from it is no more valid than if you just simply stated it yourself. The translation of this particular passage is disgusting! :vomit:
Romans 9 is speaking of nations not individual people. Paul is making the same point that Jer. 18 is making. In fact he quotes from that very chapter.

Resting in Him,
Clete

boogerhead
May 28th, 2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Knight

That may not have been your intention but it certainly was your outcome.

hmmmm...no i don't think so...

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Simple... the Bible tells the story of God creating man and woman perfect.... no sin.... no cancer... no death. Then, due to man's rebellion against God sin and death entered the world. It is sin that is to blame for the women's cancer not God.

Originally posted by Z Man

What did Christ do to ever be "crushed" by God?
:confused:
Exactly my point. Your notion that "God only 'punishes' or afflicts people based upon their sins" is wrong. Job was a righteous man before God, yet God spared no suffering and pain from him. Esau wasn't even born, yet God hated him. And Jesus never sinned, but that didn't stop God from allowing Him to be killed.

Thus, your stupid assumption that the woman gave herself cancer is, shall we say, a little "wack-o"... :kookoo:

boogerhead
May 28th, 2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Knight

That may not have been your intention but it certainly was your outcome.

i can see though how you may have perceived that i was supporting you...through reading your other posts i notice that opposing views are quickly dismissed or ignored or twisted in such a way that you think they support your claims...don't worry i used to be pretty hard-headed too...it'll pass...maybe...

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Exactly my point. Your notion that "God only 'punishes' or afflicts people based upon their sins" is wrong. Job was a righteous man before God, yet God spared no suffering and pain from him. Esau wasn't even born, yet God hated him. And Jesus never sinned, but that didn't stop God from allowing Him to be killed.

Thus, your stupid assumption that the woman gave herself cancer is, shall we say, a little "wack-o"... :kookoo: First of all I really do not appreciate your rude tone.

Secondly....
You purposefully misrepresented my statement and I am pretty sure you are aware of it.

I never once said that the lady gave herself cancer. And you know that.

I have said repeatedly that cancer, sin, pain and death are all a result of Adam's sin. This isn't exactly a revelation... and I am surprised you don't know the story yourself. When God created Adam and Eve there was no sickness, pain, sin or death.

God told Adam it would remain this way as long as Adam didn't eat from the tree.

Adam ate from the tree and therefore rebelled against God, bringing sin and death into the world.

Now that sin and death are in the world things like cancer happen.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

According to the 2nd statement Adam's blowing it was ordained to happen. It was God's will. So Adam didn't blow it, he did the exact "God glorifying" thing that he was suppossed to do. He didn't have any choice in the matter, it was already settled before he drew his first breath!
And your point is?

The New Living Translation was translated by Calvinists. Quoting from it is no more valid than if you just simply stated it yourself. The translation of this particular passage is disgusting! :vomit:
:darwinsm:

That's the most retarded reply I think I've ever heard! No wonder Knight keeps giving you POTD's! :ha: Nevertheless, that's something I would expect you to say. Trying your darndest to avoid the obvious. This verse is exactly what you are doing; complaining that if God is absolutely sovereign, then why does He still find fault. Paul says that people like you need to shut up and realize what you are;

A MERE MAN!

:chuckle:

Romans 9 is speaking of nations not individual people. Paul is making the same point that Jer. 18 is making. In fact he quotes from that very chapter.
I'll post the same verse from another translation - from several for that matter! Do what you will with them, but the meaning of it still stands:

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL GOD IT"S WRONG FOR HIM TO HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE IF HE IS ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN?


Romans 9:18-20 (NAS)
So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

Romans 9:18-20 (ASB)
So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

Romans 9:18-20 (NKJV)
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?

Romans 9:18-20 (KJV)
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

Romans 9:18-20 (The Message)
All we're saying is that God has the first word, initiating the action in which we play our part for good or ill. Are you going to object, "So how can God blame us for anything since he's in charge of everything? If the big decisions are already made, what say do we have in it?" Who in the world do you think you are to second-guess God? Do you for one moment suppose any of us knows enough to call God into question?

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by boogerhead

i can see though how you may have perceived that i was supporting you...through reading your other posts i notice that opposing views are quickly dismissed or ignored or twisted in such a way that you think they support your claims...don't worry i used to be pretty hard-headed too...it'll pass...maybe... Yea your right... I am hard headed and you are not.

Is this the best you can do?

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Z Man
That's the most retarded reply I think I've ever heard! No wonder Knight keeps giving you POTD's! :ha: Z Man... uh... your going to have to tone it down.

boogerhead
May 28th, 2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

The New Living Translation was translated by Calvinists. Quoting from it is no more valid than if you just simply stated it yourself. The translation of this particular passage is disgusting! :vomit:


here's a few other translations...maybe they will be more valid to you...

Romans 9:18
(KJV) "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

(ASV) "So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth."

(BBE) "So then, at his pleasure he has mercy on a man, and at his pleasure he makes the heart hard."

(WOR) "So then, he has mercy on whom he desires, and he hardens whom he desires."

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Knight

You purposefully misrepresented my statement and I am pretty sure you are aware of it.
Oh, so now your changing your mind?

I never once said that the lady gave herself cancer. And you know that.
Oh, I know that alright. I'm the one who says it was God. Who do you say it was?

I have said repeatedly that cancer, sin, pain and death are all a result of Adam's sin. This isn't exactly a revelation... and I am surprised you don't know the story yourself. When God created Adam and Eve there was no sickness, pain, sin or death.

God told Adam it would remain this way as long as Adam didn't eat from the tree.

Adam ate from the tree and therefore rebelled against God, bringing sin and death into the world.

Now that sin and death are in the world things like cancer happen.
Soooooooo...... Adam gave the woman cancer?

:confused:

Hilston
May 28th, 2004, 04:54 PM
Hi Knight,

I have a serious question to ask you. This is not intended as a dig or a complaint or an attempt to riducule or disparage you in any way. I just need to know ...

Knight wrote to Z-man:
the Bible tells the story of God creating man and woman perfect.... no sin.... no cancer... no death. Then, due to man's rebellion against God sin and death entered the world. It is sin that is to blame for the women's cancer not God. This is a fundamentally simple biblical concept that your sick twisted theology fails to see.I can't speak for Z-man, and I don't agree with the way he represents Calvinism, but do you really think the theology espoused by Calvinism "fails to see" that sin and death entered the world through Adam's rebellion, or were you just using hyperbole? If it's the latter, that's OK, and I understand why you would say it. But if you meant that literally, I need to know.

Sincerely,
Jim

God_Is_Truth
May 28th, 2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Look, bottom line, God predestines and is absolutely sovereign, yet He still holds us accountable. You seem to have a big problem with this, but don't take it out on me or my 'doctrine'; it's totally biblical that God predestines and is absolutely sovereign, yet He still holds us accountable for our actions.

Romans 9:18-20 (NLT)
So you see, God shows mercy to some just because he wants to, and he chooses to make some people refuse to listen. Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not listening? Haven't they simply done what he made them do?" No, don't say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to criticize God?

Romans 9:18-20 (The Message)
All we're saying is that God has the first word, initiating the action in which we play our part for good or ill. Are you going to object, "So how can God blame us for anything since he's in charge of everything? If the big decisions are already made, what say do we have in it?" Who in the world do you think you are to second-guess God? Do you for one moment suppose any of us knows enough to call God into question?

what i was trying to show was that it's impossible to predestine someone to do something (that is you doing it and not them) and for them to be truly responsible for the action.

clearly the bible says we are responsible for our actions. but it does not clearly teach that everything is predestined.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

what i was trying to show was that it's impossible to predestine someone to do something (that is you doing it and not them) and for them to be truly responsible for the action.
And what I was trying to show you was that Paul said it wasn't. People told him the same thing: "It's impossible for God to hold us accountable if it was His will. Why does He still find fault?" But Paul's reply shows that truely we are held responsible, and yet, God is absolutely soveriegn at the same time. It's not imossible; it's Scripturally sound.

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Soooooooo...... Adam gave the woman cancer?

:confused: Was there something about my explanation you didn't understand?

Crediting death and sin to Adam is fundamental to the gospel.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men - Romans 5:12

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Hi Knight,

I have a serious question to ask you.Good... I am tired on the the un-serious questions. ;)
This is not intended as a dig or a complaint or an attempt to riducule or disparage you in any way.Oh heavens no! :)


I can't speak for Z-man, and I don't agree with the way he represents Calvinism, but do you really think the theology espoused by Calvinism "fails to see" that sin and death entered the world through Adam's rebellion, or were you just using hyperbole? If it's the latter, that's OK, and I understand why you would say it. But if you meant that literally, I need to know.

Sincerely,
Jim I brought this up because Z Man accused me of claiming that the lady gave herself cancer.

I was simply defending myself from Z Man's false accusation of me.

Actually my guess is that Z Man knew my position all along but maybe he thought it would be more damaging to misrepresent my position rather than confront it head on.

Hilston
May 28th, 2004, 05:25 PM
Hi Knight,

You write:
Good... I am tired on the the un-serious questions.As opposed to a rhetorical or ridiculing one, which we both know I am famous for. :freak:

I wrote: This is not intended as a dig or a complaint or an attempt to riducule or disparage you in any way.

Knight writes:
Oh heavens no!It's still early. :)

Knight writes:
Actually my guess is that Z Man knew my position all along but maybe he thought it would be more damaging to misrepresent my position rather than confront it head on.OK. So then I'm correct in saying that you do not really believe that Calvinism fails to see that sin and death entered the world through Adam's rebellion.

Whew. I'm relieved.

Thanks for replying.

Cheers my brutha.

Jim

Delmar
May 28th, 2004, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

here's a question for the Open Theists: Surely God could see what was transpiring as the 9/11 terrorists prepared to kill thousands of people. Would it have been against your theology for God to have figured out some way to prevent them from getting on those planes? (e.g. traffic jam? food poisoning? falling-piano or guardrail?) If yes, why? If no, why wouldn't God do everything He could to stop that tragedy?

Thanks,
Jim

PS: Knight -- I (finally) have another editorial cartoon coming -- soon. Cheers.

Jim I don't have a very good grasp of where you are coming from. How does your piont of view deal with this example?

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Hilston
As opposed to a rhetorical or ridiculing one, which we both know I am famous for. :freak:I have had my share as well. :D


This is not intended as a dig or a complaint or an attempt to riducule or disparage you in any way.

It's still early. :)LOL. :chuckle:


OK. So then I'm correct in saying that you do not really believe that Calvinism fails to see that sin and death entered the world through Adam's rebellion.

Whew. I'm relieved.

Thanks for replying.

Cheers my brutha.

Jim It's weird... I thought everyone agreed on that but sometimes I wonder. :think:

I mean.... you read these posts (not yours, but others) and you start to wonder what in the world people are really thinking!

But in this case.... like I said... I was only restating the "original sin" thing to show I didn't think that the woman gave herself cancer the way Z Man claimed I had.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Was there something about my explanation you didn't understand?

Crediting death and sin to Adam is fundamental to the gospel.
Of course. We all know that because of Adam, sin entered the hearts of men. But, do you blame Adam everytime you sin?

But in this case.... like I said... I was only restating the "original sin" thing to show I didn't think that the woman gave herself cancer the way Z Man claimed I had.
Who gave the woman cancer?

Hilston
May 28th, 2004, 07:40 PM
God_is_truth writes:
you are partly right in your answer. but ignoring what they may stand for, just in this example, who would you hold responsible for the crime? bob or joe?Is Bob's son a minor? Or an adult?

God_is_truth writes:
have i ever chosen something i didn't want to? good grief yes! i may have wanted to wear my blue shirt with a hole in it to chruch when i was a kid but my parents would have made my choose another one.Why didn't you disobey them?

God_is_truth writes:
... so, i would have had to choose to wear a shirt i didn't want to wear. i chose something i didn't want to choose. i had to choose it.Not at all. You could have disobeyed. You had an option to obey or not. You chose the option that you wanted, which was obedience.

Do you have any real examples of choosing an option you did not want to choose?

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Of course. We all know that because of Adam, sin entered the hearts of men. But, do you blame Adam everytime you sin?No. Do you blame God?


Who gave the woman cancer? Uh... Dr. Suess?

I know, I know... you think God gave her cancer to show His glory. It was like God was just sitting around twiddling His thumbs saying to Himself.... "Hmmmm what should I do today.... hmmm... well..... I know! I think I will give Shirley McDoogle Leukemia!":rolleyes:

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Knight

No. Do you blame God?
Of course not. I blame myself.

Uh... Dr. Suess?

I know, I know... you think God gave her cancer to show His glory. It was like God was just sitting around twiddling His thumbs saying to Himself.... "Hmmmm what should I do today.... hmmm... well..... I know! I think I will give Shirley McDoogle Leukemia!":rolleyes:
You didn't answer my question: Who gave the woman cancer?

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Of course not. I blame myself.Why?

Didn't God predetermine each one of your sins long in advance?

Aren't your sins all part of God's plans?

Why blame yourself for perfectly fulfilling God's will?


You didn't answer my question: Who gave the woman cancer? Nobody! No one gave the woman cancer!

Now that I have answered, lets see if you have the guts to answer....

Who gave the woman cancer?

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Why?

Didn't God predetermine each one of your sins long in advance?

Aren't your sins all part of God's plans?

Why blame yourself for perfectly fulfilling God's will?
That is an almost perfect word for word reading of Romans 9:19! My answer is, of course, the same one Paul gave in v.20:

I am nothing but a mere man; who am I to criticize and question God's sovereignty? He holds me accountable, thus I am to blame for my own sins. Yet, He is still absolutely sovereign. He does as He pleases, and there is nothing I can do to stop Him or judge Him.

Nobody! No one gave the woman cancer!
So it just came out of nowhere? LOL! Ok Knight, I think you lost it here... That is definitly not a rational answer. You can do better than that.

Or are you afraid to answer the question? I think you are, because you said

Now that I have answered, lets see if you have the guts to answer....
Why would you say "if you have the guts to answer"? Are you assuming that since you gave the most incredible, un-rational answer that really isn't an answer, that you somehow "proved" you weren't afraid to answer? Why did you feel like if you didn't answer, it meant that you were afraid? And why do you feel that if I don't, I'm afraid?

Who gave the woman cancer?
I already answered this question. I have no problem with the fact that it was God who gave it to her. He does things like that all the time in Scripture. He murdered all of Egypts firstborn, He plagued them, He afflicted the Israelites for 40 years in the wilderness after their escape, He put Job through a life of hell, He blinded Zach, and Paul, and He put His own Son up for sacrifice. What's wrong with giving a woman cancer?

Freak
May 28th, 2004, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by KnightPOTD :first: This is the first indication that his position has flopped. He resorts to nominating a fellow open theist a POTD. Pathetic. :down:

boogerhead
May 28th, 2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Yea your right... I am hard headed and you are not.

Is this the best you can do?

yeah i guess so...i'm not much of a fighter...and i won't lose sleep at night because you don't agree with me...i just encourage you to have an open mind...if i offended you earlier i apologize...i was responding in a smug tone as that with which you took with me beforehand...

Proverbs 21:2 "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes; But Jehovah weigheth the hearts."

God_Is_Truth
May 28th, 2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

And what I was trying to show you was that Paul said it wasn't. People told him the same thing: "It's impossible for God to hold us accountable if it was His will. Why does He still find fault?" But Paul's reply shows that truely we are held responsible, and yet, God is absolutely soveriegn at the same time. It's not imossible; it's Scripturally sound.

Paul was no idiot. he understood what justice was. and to say that finding a person guilty for what they were forced to do is justice, is ridiculous. i like to give Paul a little more credit than that.

furthermore, scripture is never going to tell us something that is logically impossible. it's never going to say that a square both has no corners and 4 corners at the same time, in the same relationship. God uses logic and he's not going to tell us contradictory things. so if our theology makes us logically contradict ourselves in the scriptures, it's wrong. plain as that.

God_Is_Truth
May 28th, 2004, 09:36 PM
Hilston,


Is Bob's son a minor? Or an adult?


in this scenario, Bob was God and Joe is man. Bob forces Joe to do something just as the calvinist position states that God forces (predestines) man to do everything.



Why didn't you disobey them?


cause i was forced to wear the clothes they wanted me to. it was futile to resist. i really really wanted to wear the clothes i wanted to, but they made me wear other ones.



Not at all. You could have disobeyed. You had an option to obey or not. You chose the option that you wanted, which was obedience.


no, if i had said "no" then they would have sat me down, grabbed the clothes out of the closet and put them on me. i decided that i'd rather put them on myself. but that didn't change the fact that i didn't want to wear them.



Do you have any real examples of choosing an option you did not want to choose?

sure. someone else holds my hand and makes me grab an item i did not want to grab.

but frankly, you have to want something a little bit to choose it (except in the case above) or else you wouldn't want it. but just because you chose it, doesn't mean it was what you really wanted to choose or what you wanted to choose most of all.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Paul was no idiot. he understood what justice was. and to say that finding a person guilty for what they were forced to do is justice, is ridiculous. i like to give Paul a little more credit than that.
Sooooo... what are you saying? That Romans 9:18-20 is wrong? Or, that Paul didn't write that? I'm confused...

furthermore, scripture is never going to tell us something that is logically impossible. it's never going to say that a square both has no corners and 4 corners at the same time, in the same relationship. God uses logic and he's not going to tell us contradictory things. so if our theology makes us logically contradict ourselves in the scriptures, it's wrong. plain as that.
What about the Trinity? How bout the incarnation of God? How bout creating the universe through spoken words? How can God part the Red Sea, raise people from the dead, do this and that, that to us, seem way beyond logic?

Basing Scripture on logic is the most dangerous and stupid things we could ever do. Scripture goes way beyond our limited "logic". The Scripture clearly teaches us that we are responisble for our actions, and yet, God is absolutely sovereign. It's a mystery, like the Trinity. But just because you can't comprehend it logically doesn't mean the Bible is all of sudden wrong...

Big Finn
May 28th, 2004, 09:40 PM
God loving Himself is far from being selfish; in fact, it's the very thing we find our joy in - His glory.

Zman,

No one, at least not me, disputes that a person must love themselves to be able to love someone else. That, however, is not what you said. You said God is infatuated with Himself. Need I copy and paste it here to remind you?

There is a vast amount of difference between a love for yourself that allows you to love others, and being infatuated with yourself. The first is positive, the second self-destructive and sinful. The first allows a person to share, care about others, and return love. The second makes it impossible to share, care about others, or return love.

Are you backing away from your claim that God is self-infatuated? Is that what you are doing? I would think that changing your mind would be a wise choice to make.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Big Finn

Zman,

No one, at least not me, disputes that a person must love themselves to be able to love someone else. That, however, is not what you said. You said God is infatuated with Himself. Need I copy and paste it here to remind you?

There is a vast amount of difference between a love for yourself that allows you to love others, and being infatuated with yourself. The first is positive, the second self-destructive and sinful. The first allows a person to share, care about others, and return love. The second makes it impossible to share, care about others, or return love.

Are you backing away from your claim that God is self-infatuated? Is that what you are doing? I would think that changing your mind would be a wise choice to make.
:rolleyes:

Ok buddy, I don't think you're giving me enough credit here. Obviously, you don't know me that well, or else you would know that in no way am I attributing evil or sin to God's personality. I didn't mean "infatuated" the way you have interpreted it to be.

Did you read the post I had posted that was from John Piper's book, "Desiring God"? It was right after my last post to you - well, a couple of posts down from that one anyways. If not, please take time to read it, and you will definitly understand my views on God's love for Himself.

He's in the business of self-exalting Himself, not man.

Hilston
May 28th, 2004, 09:57 PM
Hi Clete,

I'm very sorry. I missed your post #56 completely.

Clete P writes:
Where the heck have you been? TOL is way less exciting without Hilston! Great to see you're back!I've been ridiculously busy. I've lurked from time to time, and resisted the urge to jump in. A new friend was telling me about some of her TOL travels, asking my opinion of some debates she has had. Talking with her about TOL tempted me to lurk again, and then I got bit by the bug. Thanks for your kind words. It's great to see you again, too.

Clete writes:
The short answer is that if people could not do evil they could not do good either.But I'm not suggesting that God disallow evil or prevent evil completely. Neither am I saying anything about God messing with men's wills or taking away their "genuine freedom." I stipulated all that in the course of discussion. Based on my exchange with Knight, I've further limited God's actions to only secretly affecting the outcomes only most heinously evil events that prematurely end the lives of innocents, and all for the sake of giving them further opportunities to believe in Him.

So if I may ask the question again:

Surely God could see what was transpiring as the 9/11 terrorists prepared to kill thousands of people. God could also see all the yet-unsaved people who were about to plunge into hell forever if He didn't do something to prevent their deaths at the hands of evil men. Would it have been against your theology for God to have figured out some surreptitious, non-miraculous way to prevent the terrorists from getting on those plane? If yes, why? If no, why wouldn't God do everything He could to postpone the unsaved people from going to hell at that time?

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Freak

This is the first indication that his position has flopped. He resorts to nominating a fellow open theist a POTD. Pathetic. :down: I vote the posts that I like Freak! Emphasis on "I".

Ya get it?

That's why its MY POTD and not yours!

Maybe you ought to just mind your own business.

Hilston
May 28th, 2004, 10:15 PM
God_Is_Truth writes:
In this scenario, Bob was God and Joe is man. Bob forces Joe to do something just as the calvinist position states that God forces (predestines) man to do everything.I'm a Calvinist*, and that's not what Calvinism espouses, i.e. that predestination is forcing men to act against their will. I don't want to be a big meanie, but no one wants to debate someone who mischaracterizes their opponent's position. If you want to ask a question or present a scenario that actually represent the facts of Calvinist claims, I will happily do my best to address them.

Jim wrote: "You could have disobeyed. You had an option to obey or not. You chose the option that you wanted, which was obedience."

God is truth writes:
no, if i had said "no" then they would have sat me down, grabbed the clothes out of the closet and put them on me.You could have put on the clothes you wanted and run away. There are several options you did not choose. Why? Why didn't you choose to disobey? At the very least you would have maximized your defiance. Instead, out of all those options, you chose the option you wanted, which was to obey (albeit begrudgingly).

God is truth writes:
i decided that i'd rather put them on myself. So you admit that you did what you wanted to do. Your choices were: (1) Obey, or (2) Disobey. You chose (1), which is exactly what you wanted.

God is truth writes:
but that didn't change the fact that i didn't want to wear them.But you DID want to wear them in lieu of the consequences of disobeying. You chose one option over another, you chose the one you preferred. You wanted to wear those clothes rather than face the consequences of not wearing them.

Jim asked: "Do you have any real examples of choosing an option you did not want to choose?"

God_is_truth writes:
sure. someone else holds my hand and makes me grab an item i did not want to grab.But that wasn't your choice. I'm talking about your choosing of an option you did not want to choose. Not someone literally forcing your hand.

God is truth writes:
but frankly, you have to want something a little bit to choose it (except in the case above) or else you wouldn't want it.Exactly.

God is truth writes:
but just because you chose it, doesn't mean it was what you really wanted to choose or what you wanted to choose most of all. Of course. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all decisions being based on your preference in the given circumstance. You never ever choose what you do not want to choose (even under duress).

*Note: This should be clarified, especially given explicit statements I've made throughout this thread. My view of the atonement may be characterized as Calvinistic. I should not have said "I am a Calvinist." I should rather have said, "I have a Calvinistic view of the atonement, and I can address these false claims about Calvinism." [Added by Hilston, 08/05/04]

Knight
May 28th, 2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Z Man
I already answered this question. I have no problem with the fact that it was God who gave it to her.Uhg. :down:

SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: God may cause cancer. Errrrrrrrr God does cause cancer. :down:


He does things like that all the time in Scripture.No He doesn't... you are wrong and I am here to defend God's name.
He murdered all of Egypts firstborn, He plagued them,This was a punishment. God warned the Egyptians and had they repented God would not have punished them.
He afflicted the Israelites for 40 years in the wilderness after their escape, Again... this was for their disobedience. They could have avoided this punishment.

It's as if you think God just randomly decided to torment these folks for no reason!

That's just plain bizarre.
He put Job through a life of hell,Tell me Z Man I am curious... what specifically do you think GOD did to Job?
He blinded Zach, and Paul, and He put His own Son up for sacrifice. What's wrong with giving a woman cancer? Oh my...... That's is just plain sick!!!! :vomit:

Forget sin.

Forget what Adam did in the garden.

Forget genetic breakdown.

It's God!!!

The cancer giver! :up: (NOT)

And now.....
Very possibly the dumbest statement ever posted at TOL:
"What's wrong with giving a woman cancer?" - Z Man

Poly
May 28th, 2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Knight


No He doesn't... you are wrong and I am here to defend God's name.

:up:

God_Is_Truth
May 28th, 2004, 11:03 PM
Sooooo... what are you saying? That Romans 9:18-20 is wrong? Or, that Paul didn't write that? I'm confused...


i'm saying that your interpretation of Romans 9:18-20 is wrong.



What about the Trinity? How bout the incarnation of God? How bout creating the universe through spoken words? How can God part the Red Sea, raise people from the dead, do this and that, that to us, seem way beyond logic?

Basing Scripture on logic is the most dangerous and stupid things we could ever do. Scripture goes way beyond our limited "logic". The Scripture clearly teaches us that we are responisble for our actions, and yet, God is absolutely sovereign. It's a mystery, like the Trinity. But just because you can't comprehend it logically doesn't mean the Bible is all of sudden wrong...

there is a world of difference between not being able to understand something and having something be logically contradictory.

God_Is_Truth
May 28th, 2004, 11:07 PM
Hilston,

i'll agree that you have to "want" to choose something in the sense that there is some form of motivation there by which you choose that thing. but that doesn't make it the only thing you want, or does it make it the thing you want the most. my biggest want may be to wear outfit "a" because i find it to be the best looking. but i may choose not to wear it one day because my parents asked nicely if i would wear something they like. so, i put my biggest want on hold so as to please my parents.

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Uhg. :down:

SURGEON GENERALS WARNING: God may cause cancer. Errrrrrrrr God does cause cancer. :down:

No He doesn't [cause things like disease]... you are wrong and I am here to defend God's name.
You are Bible illiterate:

Le 26:16
I also will do this to you: I [the Lord] will even appoint terror over you, wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

2 Chronicles 21:14-15, 18
...behold, the Lord will strike your people with a serious affliction--your children, your wives, and all your possessions; and you will become very sick with a disease of your intestines, until your intestines come out by reason of the sickness, day by day. ... After all this the Lord struck him in his intestines with an incurable disease.

De 7:15
And the Lord will take away from you all sickness, and will afflict you with none of the terrible diseases of Egypt which you have known, but will lay them on all those who hate you.

De 28:61
Also every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law, will the Lord bring upon you until you are destroyed.

It's as if you think God just randomly decided to torment these folks for no reason!
Oh, there is a reason behind everything; to glorify God. He brought sickness upon the Egyptians to display His glory. He does everything to exalt Himself.

Tell me Z Man I am curious... what specifically do you think GOD did to Job?
Through Satan, God brought affliction and turmoil and grief upon Job and all that he had. Do I really have to explain that? You have read Job right? I'm sure you'll agree with me then.

Job was a righteous man, unlike those "heathen" Egyptians, yet God did not spare his life from troubles....

Oh my...... That's is just plain sick!!!! :vomit:

Forget sin.

Forget what Adam did in the garden.

Forget genetic breakdown.

It's God!!!

The cancer giver! :up: (NOT)

And now.....
Very possibly the dumbest statement ever posted at TOL:
"What's wrong with giving a woman cancer?" - Z Man
Who said anything about forgetting all that stuff? Yes, I agree that because of sin, turmoil, sufferings and diseases abound. But still, God uses these things to bring about a greater good.


John 11:4
When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

Hilston
May 28th, 2004, 11:36 PM
God is truth writes:
i'll agree that you have to "want" to choose something in the sense that there is some form of motivation there by which you choose that thing.Will you then agree that we always choose the option we want in a given set of circumstances? I will grant that we may not like either option, but if we must choose, we always choose the option that is preferred over the other. We never choose the option we do not prefer. Do you agree?

God is truth writes:
... but that doesn't make it the only thing you want, or does it make it the thing you want the most.That's always the case, even when it's something you really want. There's always something you could want even more than that. Sometimes we choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes we choose what we view as a perfect decision. Regardless, whether under duress or without any pressure whatsoever, we choose the option we want, and never the option we do not want.

God is truth writes:
to wear outfit "a" because i find it to be the best looking. but i may choose not to wear it one day because my parents asked nicely if i would wear something they like. so, i put my biggest want on hold so as to please my parents.Exactly, which means you prefer to please your parents instead of wearing the outfit. You want to please your parents MORE than you want to wear your outfit. You wouldn't choose otherwise because that would be going against what you want to do.

So are we in agreement that you never choose the option you do not want?

Jim

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Poly

:up:
Follow Scripture; not the teachings of men (Enyart, Knight)...

Z Man
May 28th, 2004, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i'm saying that your interpretation of Romans 9:18-20 is wrong.
I didn't interpret; I merely quoted. How do you read this to be:

Romans 9:18-20
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?

Was Paul an idiot when he wrote this?

there is a world of difference between not being able to understand something and having something be logically contradictory.
Three persons in one isn't logically contridictory to you?

Lighthouse
May 28th, 2004, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

That is an almost perfect word for word reading of Romans 9:19! My answer is, of course, the same one Paul gave in v.20:

I am nothing but a mere man; who am I to criticize and question God's sovereignty? He holds me accountable, thus I am to blame for my own sins. Yet, He is still absolutely sovereign. He does as He pleases, and there is nothing I can do to stop Him or judge Him.
I can agree with what that says, but not with what you menat by it, Z Man.


So it just came out of nowhere? LOL! Ok Knight, I think you lost it here... That is definitly not a rational answer. You can do better than that.
No, it didn't come from out of nowhere. Knight said it wasn't given to her, by anybody. And I agre with him. The cancer developed through scientific processes. Yes God created those processes, but He does not control them, except for when He so desires to.


I already answered this question. I have no problem with the fact that it was God who gave it to her. He does things like that all the time in Scripture. He murdered all of Egypts firstborn, He plagued them, He afflicted the Israelites for 40 years in the wilderness after their escape, He put Job through a life of hell, He blinded Zach, and Paul, and He put His own Son up for sacrifice. What's wrong with giving a woman cancer?
God did not give her cancer. He did not murder the firstborn of Egypt, He had them killed as a punishment for what they were doing. It was not unLawful, because God is Law. God did nothing to Job. God allowed Satan to do it. Why? Because Satan didn't think Job would stay faithful. God knew He would, so God allowed Satan to try his best, for He knew that Satan would fail miserably, as he always does. And who is Zach? I figure that's supposed to be short for someone's name, but whose? Does this woman think that God was trying to get her attention somehow? Because that's the only reason I could think of as to why He would actually give her cancer. But why would He be trying to get her attention? Hasn't she already turned to Him?

Hilston
May 28th, 2004, 11:52 PM
Z man has brought up the subject of Job.

God taunted Satan to go after Job.

Job 1:8 "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?"

Satan brings the Sabeans and the Chaldeans to attack Job's family, servants and livestock. Satan also brings a wind to fall on Job's sons and kills them.

After all this happened to Job, he claimed that God was behind the calamity and tragedy.

Job 1:21 "And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

What kind of sick and perverted mind blames God for what Satan did? Unless Job recognized that nothing that happens to him, whether from Satan, the evil Sabeans and Chaldeans, or a wind from the wilderness, that is not according to God's sovereign decrees.

Job 1:22 "In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly."

Jim

Lighthouse
May 29th, 2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Z Man

You are Bible illiterate:

Le 26:16
I also will do this to you: I [the Lord] will even appoint terror over you, wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
God was punishing them.


2 Chronicles 21:14-15, 18
...behold, the Lord will strike your people with a serious affliction--your children, your wives, and all your possessions; and you will become very sick with a disease of your intestines, until your intestines come out by reason of the sickness, day by day. ... After all this the Lord struck him in his intestines with an incurable disease.
God was punishing them.


De 7:15
And the Lord will take away from you all sickness, and will afflict you with none of the terrible diseases of Egypt which you have known, but will lay them on all those who hate you.
God was punishing those who hated them.


De 28:61
Also every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law, will the Lord bring upon you until you are destroyed.
God was punishing them.


Oh, there is a reason behind everything; to glorify God. He brought sickness upon the Egyptians to display His glory. He does everything to exalt Himself.
No. He brought it upon them to show His wrath, and sovereignty.


Through Satan, God brought affliction and turmoil and grief upon Job and all that he had. Do I really have to explain that? You have read Job right? I'm sure you'll agree with me then.
No. Satan did that himself. All alone. God did not use Satan. God merely allowed Satan to do it.


Job was a righteous man, unlike those "heathen" Egyptians, yet God did not spare his life from troubles....
No kidding. God let Satan prove himself a fool. God doesn't spare anyone's life from trouble. That doesn't mean He brings all the trouble upon us. He merely lets it come our way.


Who said anything about forgetting all that stuff? Yes, I agree that because of sin, turmoil, sufferings and diseases abound. But still, God uses these things to bring about a greater good.
Once again, I agree with what I read, but not what you mean. God uses them, but He does not cause them.


John 11:4
When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it." [/QUOTE]
See, God used a pre-existing condition to glorify Himself. It was not the sickness that showed God's glory, but the healing that took place.

I do believe that God does discipline us. But it's usually in the form of our sin being brought to light. As in the case with David, being confronted by Nathan.

Hilston
May 29th, 2004, 12:14 AM
Lighthouse writes:
No. Satan did that himself. All alone. God did not use Satan. God merely allowed Satan to do it.Did you read what Job said? He said, "The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

Was Job foolishly charging God?

Jim

Lighthouse
May 29th, 2004, 12:41 AM
Yes. Or maybe you misunderstood Job. Maybe Job merely meant that God allowed it to be taken away.

boogerhead
May 29th, 2004, 12:56 AM
Job 1:20 "Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped, 21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD. 22 In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly."

since we can't ask job what he maybe meant we're gonna have go with what's written and what's written is that job did not charge God foolishly with wrongdoing but instead declared that God did all things according to justice and equity...

Hilston
May 29th, 2004, 12:59 AM
Lighthouse,

He said, "The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD."

How you found something in the text that tells you that Job really meant, "The LORD allowed it to be given, and the LORD hath allowed it to be taken away; ..."?

I don't mean to be harsh, but it appears you have to change the words of scripture to prove your theology.

Jim

Lighthouse
May 29th, 2004, 01:14 AM
No I don't. I didn't say that's what it meant. And scripture tells us that Job did not charge God foolishly, so we know he did not. But we know that God does allow things. And we know that He gives and He takes away. He also allows us to recieve, and allows us to throw things away. He allows things to be taken from us. He does many things. He is sovereign. So He gave Job what Job had, and by allowing it to be taken away, He took it away. But not directly, as Calvinists would like us to believe. The scripture plainly tells us that God allwed Satan to destroy Job's life. Then God restored to Job, twice as much as had been taken. But Job is not the pint here, really. This is all about the woman who said God gave her cancer. There is no reason for her to believe that God gave her cancer. She got cancer, through the way her body processed something that enterd her body. God can be considered top be responsible, because he created the body to work in such a way, but He is not directly responsible. It is not His fault if we don't take care of our bodies.

Freak
May 29th, 2004, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Z Man to Poly

Follow Scripture; not the teachings of men (Enyart, Knight)... Poly's a puppet so don't mind her.

Knight deal with the Scripture that Zman pointed out in regards to God using diseases for His divine purposes...

Big Finn
May 29th, 2004, 08:36 AM
Zman,


He's in the business of self-exalting Himself, not man.

I know you think that this is somehow better than being self-infatuated, but it isn't. This is what an self-infatuated person does. They exalt themselves above others.

Take a look at the following description of Lucifer and see if it is not described in principle by your description of God.


Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Is not self-exaltion the very business Lucifer was in that the Bible says was his downfall? You are clothing God with the attributes of the the devil and you can't even see it. The very essence of sin is self-exaltation. To charge God with that is blasphemy.

boogerhead
May 29th, 2004, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Big Finn

Zman,

I know you think that this is somehow better than being self-infatuated, but it isn't. This is what an self-infatuated person does. They exalt themselves above others.

Take a look at the following description of Lucifer and see if it is not described in principle by your description of God.

Is not self-exaltion the very business Lucifer was in that the Bible says was his downfall? You are clothing God with the attributes of the the devil and you can't even see it. The very essence of sin is self-exaltation. To charge God with that is blasphemy.

i understand how it may be hard to accept this concept b/c we think that God is being "cocky" which we see as a bad thing...BUT the reason it's a bad thing, the reason it's wrong to be cocky is that we cannot compare to God...read Job 38 and see if you or anyone could do any of those things of which God speaks...

Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

God IS the most High...for ANOTHER to exalt oneself is blasphmemous (claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God)...b/c we're taking away the glory of which only He is worthy...

"Our God is in the heavens; He does WHATEVER He pleases" Psalm 115:3

...if He did not glorify and exalt Himself above all else then looking to Him for anything would be futal...it'd be like looking to some grumbling insecure father for comfort who cannot give it to us b/c he's insecure and doesn't know if he's capable to do what we need ...he's not sure of himself as the father :(...God is NOT like that...He's not insecure :)...

"I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is NONE like me declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.'" (Isaiah 46:9-10)

...sounds to me that God has a very healthy self-image and so He should...and he doesn't need you to approve His self-exaltation

Z Man
May 29th, 2004, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

God was punishing them.


God was punishing them.


God was punishing those who hated them.


God was punishing them.
Your assumption that God only appoints diseases and afflictions to punish people is a little off track. Job was a righteous man; Christ knew no sin; there were firstborn babies that were killed by God in Egypt, not to mention the city of Sodom and Gomorrah, and countless other nations that were enemies to Israel - God did not spare the innocent in those cities.

But then again, who are the innocent?

No. He brought [plagues] upon [the Egyptians] to show His wrath, and sovereignty.
Yeah, His glory. Same thing.

No. Satan did that himself. All alone. God did not use Satan. God merely allowed Satan to do it.
God initiated the whole thing. He beckoned Satan to afflict Job, even though Job was a rightous man.

No kidding. God let Satan prove himself a fool. God doesn't spare anyone's life from trouble. That doesn't mean He brings all the trouble upon us. He merely lets it come our way.
God doesn't just sit back and watch the universe unfold on some big TV screen; He's directly involved.


Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.

John 11:4
When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

See, God used a pre-existing condition to glorify Himself. It was not the sickness that showed God's glory, but the healing that took place.
Exactly! Now how could God show His glory through healing if the girl had no sickness? Who do you think made her sick?

How could Job have experienced the awesome sovereignty and glory of God had he not of been through what he went through? How could we know of God's love had He not come and die for us? How can we know what is good unless we've seen what was bad?

I do believe that God does discipline us. But it's usually in the form of our sin being brought to light. As in the case with David, being confronted by Nathan.
God does not cause affliction and turmoil solely for punishment; there is a greater cause, primarily to display His awesome Worth, Holiness, and astounding Glory.

Z Man
May 29th, 2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Big Finn

Zman,



I know you think that this is somehow better than being self-infatuated, but it isn't. This is what an self-infatuated person does. They exalt themselves above others.

Take a look at the following description of Lucifer and see if it is not described in principle by your description of God.



Is not self-exaltion the very business Lucifer was in that the Bible says was his downfall? You are clothing God with the attributes of the the devil and you can't even see it. The very essence of sin is self-exaltation. To charge God with that is blasphemy.
:rolleyes:

You have a lot to learn my young lad...

Boogerhead did a great job replying to your post in #195. I suggest you take a look at that. Also, until you read that post from John Piper's book "Desiring God", I really don't care to hear your opinions on the matter.

Z Man
May 29th, 2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Freak

Knight deal with the Scripture that Zman pointed out in regards to God using diseases for His divine purposes...
Darn it; I've done it again. Everytime I pull out the "Word", the OV'ers scatter... :(

Seriously though, the burden of proof lie in the hands of the OV'ers, because their false doctrine cannot be supported by Scriptures. John 11:4 tells us plainly that God uses sickness to show His glory. Job was right in saying his afflictions were from the Lord. Christ was correct in stating that His death and sufferings were the will of God. Paul was correct in telling us that Egypts plagues were caused to show the glory of God. So, why is it wrong for a woman to say the same thing of her disease?

Big Finn
May 29th, 2004, 10:00 AM
Boogerhead did a great job replying to your post in #195. I suggest you take a look at that. Also, until you read that post from John Piper's book "Desiring God", I really don't care to hear your opinions on the matter.

Well, that is one way to get out of giving an honest answer.

Big Finn
May 29th, 2004, 10:12 AM
i understand how it may be hard to accept this concept b/c we think that God is being "cocky" which we see as a bad thing...BUT the reason it's a bad thing, the reason it's wrong to be cocky is that we cannot compare to God...read Job 38 and see if you or anyone could do any of those things of which God speaks...

Hardly....

What is at stake here is a principle. The principle which Lucifer adopted was that of self-exaltation. That is the problem. Do you not see that principle at work in sin? What is sin to you?

Do you not see the antithesis of sin in the life of Christ? A life lived by, and a death exemplifying, the principle of being selfless. Jesus told us explicitly that if we have seen Him we have seen the Father also. So, when Jesus exemplifies selflessness how then can the Father exemplify self-exaltation?

Do you not see that the two concepts of self-exaltation and selflessness as mutually exclusive? If the Father is self-exalting then we can not see Him by seeing His selfless Son. They would be opposite in character. Jesus would not reflect who His Father is. It is a very simple, but very profound concept that the whole of Calvinism denies.

Rolf Ernst
May 29th, 2004, 10:33 AM
Strange! So many people who do not know Reformed doctrine are in a great rush to pontificate on what Calvinists believe.

The reason you never see them quoting Calvinistic theologians, or explaining what Calvinists believe by accurately detailing what Calvinists believe concerning any text of scripture is that they have never studied the issue well enough to know.

It is just so much easier for them to misrepresent Reformed doctrine and set up strawmen built by their imaginations than it is for them to understand and refute Reformed doctrine.

Big Finn
May 29th, 2004, 10:41 AM
Rolf,

I speak to what I see of Calvinism on the forums. If you do not think that these men and women represent what Calvinism is, then why do you not take exception with them? Are they not the ones who are truly misrepresenting it?

However, you do nothing to combat what they put forth, you sit in silence.

Rolf Ernst
May 29th, 2004, 11:36 AM
Big Finn--In the 200th post on this thread, you equate self-exaltation with sin. That is certainly true concerning creatures, because ALL glory BELONGS to God. The earth is full not of the creature's glory, but of God's glory.

Anything in the creature which is considered glorious is from God. He looked upon His creation--"And God saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good."

Therefore, any self-exaltation by His creatures is an attempt to rob God of the glory which rightfully belongs to Him as having created it so.

I don't know where you get the idea of self-exaltation on God's part. He does not exalt Himself for He is from everlasting to everlasting infinitely glorious. If He could at any point exalt Himself, it would be a contradiction of His immutability. If He could exalt Himself to any degree, it would be to a glory which He did not have before.

Some Calvinist may have mistakenly used that term, but it is certainly not scriptural, nor is it true to Calvinistic theology.

God's first purpose to get glory to Himself is not self-exaltation, but a determination to make His name known upon the earth--to manifest that glory which is rightfully His, and the highest end of man is to realize God's glory and to fully enjoy Him in that glory. So no one can charge God with being either self-centered, or with attempting to exalt Himself.

You say that the selflessness of Christ shows a contradictory nature between Him and the Father--concerning that, you must realize the Jesus came as a servant to fulfill the mission given Him by the Father.
He was both God and man: two natures in one person, His humanity never becoming partially God, nor His Deity (in Him dwelt ALL THE FULLNESS of the Godhead) in anyway partially human. His purpose on earth was to manifest the glory of God, and in all His ways He did that so perfectly that He could say, "He that has seen me has seen the Father"; that is, as I am, so the Father is. He is just like me. If you want to know what the Father is like, just look at me. The writer of Hebrews said that Christ is the Father's express image.

As Jesus prepared to return to thee Father, He said, "glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." So there is no way in which the Son and Father are less than One.

Knight
May 29th, 2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

What kind of sick and perverted mind blames God for what Satan did?
Well.... I guess Z Man does.

:(

Knight
May 29th, 2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Freak

Poly's a puppet so don't mind her.See ya dude! :wave2:

You made an agreement (after your last banishment) you would NOT act this way on the board.

You have broken that agreement.


Knight deal with the Scripture that Zman pointed out in regards to God using diseases for His divine purposes... I have responded to it specifically.

You should pay better attention.

Oh well... I am sure you will find another web forum to annoy.

Knight
May 29th, 2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Darn it; I've done it again. Everytime I pull out the "Word", the OV'ers scatter... :(

Oh please. :rolleyes:

I think everyone is still in shock that you think God was instructing Satan on just how to to torment Job.

Oh... and... many of us are still floored by....

"What's wrong with giving a woman cancer?" - Z Man

You are so far off in left field it's more fun to just watch you cram your own feet in your mouth.

Big Finn
May 29th, 2004, 01:01 PM
I don't know where you get the idea of self-exaltation on God's part.

Rolf, you haven't been reading very closely have you? Zman first said God is infatuated with Himself, then He said God is in the business of exalting Himself. boogerhead chimed in in support of zman. Those are your Calvinist friends putting forth that idea not me.

If you don't agree with the idea, and it is against Calvinist theology then show them, not me. They are the Calvinist's supporting the idea, although the idea seems to run all through Calvinism from what I've seen on this forum. You're the first Calvinist to deny it.

Big Finn
May 29th, 2004, 01:14 PM
You say that the selflessness of Christ shows a contradictory nature between Him and the Father--concerning that, you must realize the Jesus came as a servant to fulfill the mission given Him by the Father.
He was both God and man: two natures in one person, His humanity never becoming partially God, nor His Deity (in Him dwelt ALL THE FULLNESS of the Godhead) in anyway partially human. His purpose on earth was to manifest the glory of God, and in all His ways He did that so perfectly that He could say, "He that has seen me has seen the Father"; that is, as I am, so the Father is. He is just like me. If you want to know what the Father is like, just look at me. The writer of Hebrews said that Christ is the Father's express image.

Rolf,

I agree completely with the part I have bolded. However, you are saying that selflessness is the express image of self-exaltation. The two terms are mutually exclusive and you know it. Selflessness cannot model self-exaltation.

And, yes, Jesus came to be a servant. He came to show us God!!! Do you realize what you are saying and what you are arguing against? Jesus came to show us God. He came as a servant. He lived and died selflessly. What does this tell you??? That God is not what Jesus modeled for us??? I know you are smarter than to draw that conclusion from this.

Big Finn
May 29th, 2004, 01:21 PM
Rolf,

To take a couple of words from your post.

Jesus is the express image of God. Jesus is selfless. God is therefore selfless. Jesus came as a servant to man and God. God is a servant to His creation. Jesus was called, and is, our Master. God is our Master. Both images are true. God is a selfless Master. That is why the world does not understand Him.

Did Jesus not tell us that who ever wanted to be greatest must be the servant of all? These lessons are all through the entire life of Jesus. He is showing us God. God is our Master and the servant of all.

NoHell
May 29th, 2004, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Knight

See ya dude! :wave2:

You made an agreement (after your last banishment) you would NOT act this way on the board.

You have broken that agreement.

Knight, being a little ban-happy today? No reason to ban dear Freak.

Knight
May 29th, 2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by NoHell

Knight, being a little ban-happy today? No reason to ban dear Freak. Actually there is.

After Freak's last banning Freak agreed he would try to be less divisive and do more than simply pop into threads just to make a snide comment about me, TOL, TOL moderators or my Pastor.

Sadly for Freak he couldn't keep his word.

Freak has reduced himself to nothing more than a forum pest and rarely if ever adds to the debate with anything constructive one way or the other.

I have done everything I can to keep Freak from being permanently banned but enough is enough as it seems Freak does not learn.

Titus 3:10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition.

The difference here is that Freak has had about 23 admonitions.

Oh and trust me..... It wasn't just this thread that Freak was acting his immature self. This thread was simply the last straw.

Z Man
May 29th, 2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Originally posted by Freak
Knight deal with the Scripture that Zman pointed out in regards to God using diseases for His divine purposes...
I have responded to it specifically.
Where?! :confused:

Oh please.

I think everyone is still in shock that you think God was instructing Satan on just how to to torment Job.

Oh... and... many of us are still floored by....

"What's wrong with giving a woman cancer?" - Z Man

You are so far off in left field it's more fun to just watch you cram your own feet in your mouth.
Knight,

You are avoiding the obvious. You started this thread stating how you think it is disgusting that some woman gave God the credit for her cancer. I've shown you through Scripture that her claims are accurate and Biblical. Who else could of given her cancer? Your answer was no one, which makes no sense. The answer is God, yet you are so trying to avoid coming to that conclusion. You seem afraid. Instead of taking the context of my posts head on, you dance around them, mis-quoting me and emphasizing statements I made that of course make me look horrible when ripped out of context the way you have done them.

Bottom line, I gave Scriptural evidence that God uses sickeness, diseases, calamity, trials, afflictions, and tribulations for a greater cause; mainly to display His glory. You have yet to make a valid response to those Scriptures. Instead of running around claiming that I believe in an evil, sick and twisted God, why don't you be a man for once and have a decent debate with me. Take to heart the Scriptures I have presented. Do not be afraid of them, but rather embrace them, and come to know God as He was meant to be known; in complete and absolute Sovereignty, enamored with uttermost Glory, who has created the light and the dark, peace and evil, all to show the world that He is a God of glory who will reign supreme forever more.

Poly
May 29th, 2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

Follow Scripture; not the teachings of men (Enyart, Knight)...
Don't even go there Zman. I'm getting really sick to death of hearing people around here making these kind of stupid statements. If you yourself have ever once read a book or sat under somebody's teaching of scripture and gained something from it then you are a hypocrite for making this statement. It's rather shallow, and weak thing to say.

I can't stand things being contributed to the Living God that I serve. I take it very personally when somebody says things about Him that are not true. When I hear somebody else say that they want to defend His name when it comes to setting the record straight on who He really is, it encourages me tremendously. This is why I gave a thumbs up to such a great statement, NOT because I follow Knight instead of God. :rolleyes:

Rolf Ernst
May 29th, 2004, 06:15 PM
Big Finn--in #208 you say that I say that selflessness is self exaltation. I never said such a thing, nor did I think it. Those are words you are trying to assign to me.

One thing you must always keep in mind concerning Christ--He is both God and man: When you read His statement that "the Father is greater than I," He is speaking in regard to His humanity. In other places, He speaks in regard to His deity and the Jews respond, "He makes Himself equal with God." Both are true.

Speaking of human traits and trying to ascribe them to God in some way or trying to compare God with the creature in any way is utterly futile and dishonors Him. It is equal to taking God's name in vain.
Remember where He said, "My ways are not your ways, nor my thoughts as your thoughts; for as the heavens are high above the earth, so are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts."

In all His attributes He is infinitely perfect. Therefore a human being trying to weigh, evaluate, or make a judgement concerning those attributes is surely the greatest possible arrogance of which a man can be guilty.

"WHO BY SEARCHING CAN FIND OUT GOD ?" When men presume to weigh or evaluate the merit of His many attributes, that is what they are presumptuously attempting to do. Surely there is no greater arrogance.

Big Finn
May 29th, 2004, 07:16 PM
Rolf,

Interesting way of saying a lot of nothing. You parade quite carefully down both sides of the fence at once. God isn't selfless like Christ. God isn't self-exalting. Dont try to measure God by human standards.

Funny how God says just the opposite. He says, Taste and see that the Lord is good. He says, Get to know me. Try me and see if I'm not faithful to my promises. Learn by experience that I am trustworthy and of good character.

God appeals to our sense of judgment of fairness, honesty, caring, and love, all throughout the Bible. Yet you say, ah, don't pay any attention to those things. You can't hold God to any of these human standards of what is right and wrong. Sorry, but God disagrees with you.

Funny also how Jesus paints a picture of His Father in the parable of the Prodigal son. He paints a picture of God loving, caring for, and yearning for his lost son. He paints the picture of the Father running to meet his son because His heart was full of love. Here is a picture of the love of God drawn in human terms and you tell me that it isn't applicable to understanding God because God can't be held to human standards. Wow, what a waste of words. I guess Jesus was talking to hear himself talk.

It's also funny how the Bible pictures God in the ultimate role of master and servant in human terms--Father. A father is the master of his house, yet the servant of all his domain. You tell me that this isn't applicable to God, that I can't judge Him by human standards. Well, I guess you must then throw out huge portions of the scriptures. Jesus telling us to to call God our father. Jesus calling him Daddy. All these pictures are wasted because we just can't really apply them to God. We just can't understand Him in human terms. I would consider the Bible to be a huge waste in terms of understanding God if I were to take your advice.

Sorry, Rolf, zman, and boogerhead, but your religion is blasphemous. It paints God in exactly the opposite terms that the Bible, and Jesus through His life, portray Him. Calvinism paints God with the attributes of His adversary and ours, the devil.

In your religion fathers give their children cancer. What a religion.

Knight
May 29th, 2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Z Man
Knight,

You are avoiding the obvious. You started this thread stating how you think it is disgusting that some woman gave God the credit for her cancer. I've shown you through Scripture that her claims are accurate and Biblical.No.. no you haven't. All you have shown is that God punishes the wicked and you will get no disagreement from me on that one.

Nowhere in scripture do you find God randomly tormenting innocent people.


Who else could of given her cancer?How many times do you need to be told? Cancer isn't "given". Nor is Alzheimer's, or aneurisms or a multitude of other ailments. Apparently you are the only one on this thread that thinks cancer is "given".


Your answer was no one, which makes no sense. The answer is God, yet you are so trying to avoid coming to that conclusion.I always avoid irrational conclusions.


You seem afraid. Instead of taking the context of my posts head on, you dance around them, mis-quoting me and emphasizing statements I made that of course make me look horrible when ripped out of context the way you have done them.

Bottom line, I gave Scriptural evidence that God uses sickeness, diseases, calamity, trials, afflictions, and tribulations for a greater cause; mainly to display His glory. You have yet to make a valid response to those Scriptures. You are wrong! I have responded to your assertions as I have yet again in this post!

God doesn't randomly torment innocent people. The only biblical examples you have supplied show God punishing wicked people. Therefore you have given ZERO biblical support that God randomly torments innocent people.

Now... maybe you missed it but I asked you a question and you avoided it....

You stated that God... "put Job through a life of hell," to which I asked....

Tell me Z Man I am curious... what specifically do you think GOD did to Job?

Lighthouse
May 29th, 2004, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Z ManGod initiated the whole thing. He beckoned Satan to afflict Job, even though Job was a rightous man.
No He didn't! Satan came to God. The scripture tells us that.

Job 1:8-12
"Then the Lord asked Satan, 'Have you moticed my servant Job? He is the finest man in all the earth-a man of complete integrity. He fears God and will have nothing to do with evil. Satan replied to the Lord, 'Yes, Job fears God, but not without good reason! You have always protected him and his home and his property from harm. You have made him prosperous in everything he does. Look how rich he is! But take away everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face!' 'All right, you may test him,' the Lord said to Satan. 'Do whatever you want with everything he possesses, but don't harm him physically.' So Satan left the Lord's presence."
-NLT

It was Satan's idea that Job would curse God, if He lost everything. So God, knowing how faithful Job was, let Satan try his hardest. And Satan made a fool of himself, as he always does.

Knight
May 29th, 2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Big Finn
Sorry, Rolf, zman, and boogerhead, but your religion is blasphemous. It paints God in exactly the opposite terms that the Bible, and Jesus through His life, portray Him. Calvinism paints God with the attributes of His adversary and ours, the devil.

In your religion fathers give their children cancer. What a religion. Tragic. :(

P.S. Great post! :up:

Knight
May 29th, 2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse
And Satan made a fool of himself, as he always does. Kinda makes you wonder what in the world they (Z Man and the like) think the lesson of the story of Job is eh? :nono:

Big Finn
May 29th, 2004, 09:43 PM
Rolf,

I just realized that I didn't answer something from your post.

You said:
Big Finn--in #208 you say that I say that selflessness is self exaltation. I never said such a thing, nor did I think it. Those are words you are trying to assign to me.

Hmmm.... Well, you said the following in a previous post.

You say that the selflessness of Christ shows a contradictory nature between Him and the Father--concerning that, you must realize the Jesus came as a servant to fulfill the mission given Him by the Father.

The import of this statement is quite clear. You acknowledge a couple of things:

1. God's character is in conflict with Christ's character from your point of view.

2. Christ's character while here on earth was the epitome of selflessness.

Thus, if Christ's character is selflessness and God's character is contradictory to this principle, then God's character can only be based in self-exaltation. I have not said anything about your position other than what you yourself have deduced in your own posts.

The statement you made on concerning the character of Christ is really something. It implies that Christ's character was only what it was here on earth because of the role He had to play. In other words Christ's life was one of hypocrisy because He was only role playing. His selflessness wasn't there before He became a man. These are really interesting things that you believe, Rolf.

One request of you too. I would like you to show Biblical support for your statements about not applying the human concepts of love, honor, trust, strength and goodness of character, etc... to our knowledge of God and the picture that the Bible paints of God as our Father. Show explicit support for this reasoning. I will be really interested in seeing it as I don't believe it exists. In fact that reasoning violates everything we know about why the Bible exists, as it exists to give us a mental picture of God.

Hilston
May 30th, 2004, 01:45 AM
This is a combined response to Lighthouse, Big Finn, Poly and Knight

To Lighthouse

Lighthouse writes: ... So He gave Job what Job had, and by allowing it to be taken away, He took it away. But not directly, as Calvinists would like us to believe.That's not what Calvinists believe. Debating straw men is much easier, isn't it?


Lighthouse writes: ... The scripture plainly tells us that God allwed Satan to destroy Job's life.God taunted Satan, challenged him. Satan responded with complaints about the hedge God had placed around Job, so God gave Satan the go-ahead to afflict Job. It wasn't merely "allowed." It was instigated by God.


Lighthouse writes: But Job is not the point here, really. This is all about the woman who said God gave her cancer. ...Not so. This is about Calvinists being misrepresented and the OV fallacy of attacking straw men of their own concoction.


Lighthouse writes: There is no reason for her to believe that God gave her cancer.I completely agree. But did decree that she would acquire it "through the way her body processed something that entered her body."


Lighthouse writes: God can be considered to be responsible, because he created the body to work in such a way, but He is not directly responsible. It is not His fault if we don't take care of our bodies.Lighthouse, do you know what "responsible" means? God is not responsible for anything, ever. Do you get that?

To Big Finn
Someone wrote: "He's in the business of self-exalting Himself, not man."


Big Finn replies: I know you think that this is somehow better than being self-infatuated, but it isn't. This is what an self-infatuated person does. They exalt themselves above others. The reason self-exaltation amongst men is self-infatuation is that it is based on a lie. God exalts Himself truthfully, duly, and righteously.


Big Finn writes: Is not self-exaltion the very business Lucifer was in that the Bible says was his downfall?Lucifer's self-exaltation was based on a lie. God's self-exaltation is not.


Big Finn replies: You are clothing God with the attributes of the the devil and you can't even see it. The very essence of sin is self-exaltation. To charge God with that is blasphemy.Seriously, Big Finn, you're up a tree with this one. Consider:

Joh 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Joh 13:31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

What a cocky self-absorbed ego-maniac God is! It looks to me like He's got some kind of "God complex." Perhaps some counseling is in order.

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.


Big Finn writes: So, when Jesus exemplifies selflessness how then can the Father exemplify self-exaltation?See Jn 12:28 13:31 17:5.


Big Finn writes: Do you not see that the two concepts of self-exaltation and selflessness as mutually exclusive?Only for self-deceived and willfully ignorant humans. Not for the omniscient and omnipotent God.


Big Finn writes: If the Father is self-exalting then we can not see Him by seeing His selfless Son. They would be opposite in character. Jesus would not reflect who His Father is. It is a very simple, but very profound concept that the whole of Calvinism denies.You guys should start a club: "The Straw-man Calvinism Bashers Club." It reminds me of how liberals distort the views of conservatives just to make it easier to ridicule.

To Knight

Hilston originally wrote: What kind of sick and perverted mind blames God for what Satan did?


Knight replies: Well.... I guess Z Man does.You seem to have missed my point. I was being facetious. Job credited God for what Satan did, yet did not charge foolishly.

To Poly


Poly writes: I can't stand things being contributed to the Living God that I serve.Do you mean like the way Job contributed his calamity to the Living God?

OV version of Re 22:13: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and (maybe) the end, the first and (maybe) the last. I'm definitely not the middle, because the entire middle doesn't exist yet. Then again, neither does the end, so I can't really be that either."

Jim

Sozo
May 30th, 2004, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

You guys should start a club: "The Straw-man Calvinism Bashers Club." It reminds me of how liberals distort the views of conservatives just to make it easier to ridicule.



Dear Jim,

Considering the fact, that every "Calvinist" I have requested a reply to Romans 5:18 has ignored me completely, perhaps you would like to give it a go?

Romans 5:18 KJV

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

It is the same all!

If all men are not offered the free gift, then all men are not condemned.

Also, unless the gift is received then you must logically conclude that all men have life.

Big Finn
May 30th, 2004, 06:59 AM
Hilston,

The Bible quite clearly draws a picture of God as not only a father, but our Father. This is a very human perception. A father is trustworthy, caring, loving, and yet master of his domain. A person who rules in love, not nitpicking domination and willing to give his children cancer. Give your Biblical support for your contention that this picture of God can be ignored, that it is meaningless.

Please show Biblically that Jesus' picture of the father in the prodigal son is not an accurate representation of what God is like. Also, if you are able to give this Biblical support for your position show us why Jesus taught this parable that is so far away from the actual reality of who God is.

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 08:57 AM
Big Finn--In post #215 you are trying to MOVE the point of discussion from your assertion that Christ and His Father present contradictory personages.

My response was to demonstrate to you that men are not qualified to sit in judgement on the divine attributes of Christ and His Father. AND YOU AREN'T.

Then, attempting to prove your point, you bring in verses that in no way address the point you were originally trying to make as you tried
to put Christ and His Father at contradictory loggerheads.

You make me think of a card shark who deceitfully slips a card into the pack that does not belong there.

If you don't REALLY believe that the gospels present conflict between the Father and Christ, just say so and my point against your posts will be at an end. That is the point of my posts--not the verses which you introduced that say nothing at all to buttress your original point.

I see your shifting of the argument you began with. Are you trying to muddy the water?

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 09:28 AM
SOZO--in post #222, you say no Calvinist has answered you challenge on Romans 5:18. I gave a lengthy post on Romans chapter 5 months ago. It is probably still there.

Romans five primarily concerns the headships of Adam and Christ. If that is not observed, the apostle's point will be missed.

There are two headships in Ro. 5--the headship of Adam under which headship we all are; and the headship of Christ, under which headship are all those whom the Father chose in Christ before the foundation of the world.

The point is that Adam brought death upon all those under his headship and that Christ brings life to all those under His headship. Christ is the head of the church.

Those under the headship of Adam die not because of what THEY did, but because of what their federal head did, and that deadly effect reigned over each and everyone alike.

Those under the headship of Christ, as a consequence of the Father having chosen them in Christ before the foundation of the world LIVE--not because of what THEY do, but because of the effect wrought upon them by their federal head, Christ; and the reign of life through Christ comes to ALL those chosen in Christ, each and everyone alike.

Death to every son of Adam. Life to every son of Christ. That is why in Isaiah 9:6 He is called the "everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

The term "all," used repeatedly by Paul in chapter five, applies to either "all" those in Adam, or "all" those in Christ.

Of course, the entirety of humanity was in Adam, so we all--each and every one of us--came under the reign of death; but not "all" of humanity were chosen in Christ. Christ's headship does not apply to each and every individual as Adam's does. It applies only to those who, by God's sovereign choice, were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Christ said of that choosing, "many are called, but few are chosen." That is, as the gospel is declared, the call of God goes out to mankind, but few of them are chosen. Few are under the headship of Christ, but "all" that ARE under His headship live because of Him just as all died in Adam.

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 09:53 AM
BIG FINN--Again, in post 220, you mischaracterize what I say. Why are you incapable of referring to MY words without putting YOUR spin on them? Sir, in the future, when you SAY what I have said, I authorize you, sir, to go no further than to QUOTE what I said. Never before have I had to say that to anyone else. It is necessary on your part because you apparently cannot understand what I say and you wickedly try to make something of my words which I never intended. "With friends like you..."

Big Finn
May 30th, 2004, 09:57 AM
Rolf,


Then, attempting to prove your point, you bring in verses that in no way address the point you were originally trying to make as you tried
to put Christ and His Father at contradictory loggerheads.

Either you are deliberately dishonest, you do not even read what I have said, or my logic is more than you can follow. I have never said that Christ and His Father are contradictory, but that Calvinism portrays them as having characters that are contradictory. You really need to learn to comprehend what you read.

Your Calvinist buddy zman is the one that stated that God is infatuated with Himself and in the business of self-exaltation, and boogerhead backed him up. I deny that and have since my first post on this thread. I have repeatedly said that to portray God in any other light than the selflessness we see in Jesus' life, and death, is blasphemy.

The doctrines of Calvinism deny my contentions or you guys would not be arguing with me.

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 10:22 AM
BIG FINN--okay then, big boy, show me HOW Calvinism presents them as contradictory. You have the floor; but when you speak, don't expect me to accept one of your misrepresentations of Reformed doctrine.

Big Finn
May 30th, 2004, 10:30 AM
BIG FINN--okay then, big boy, show me HOW Calvinism presents them as contradictory. You have the floor; but when you speak, don't expect me to accept one of your misrepresentations of Reformed doctrine.

1. zman, a Calvinist, first said God is self-infatuated and then changed that to "God is in the business of self-exaltation".

2. boogerhead backed him up.

3. I have contended that when we see the character of Christ in the Bible we see the character of God. I agreed with your post in which you said Christ is the express image of His Father.

4. Every Calvinist on this thread has taken exception with the idea that God's character and Christ's character are one.

5. You are here arguing with my contentions.

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 10:57 AM
Questions for every OVer and Arminian--

1. Who wounds?

2. Who kills?

3. Who creates evil?

4 Why was Lazareth allowed to die? Hint: Jn.11:4

5. Why was the man blind from birth? Hint: Jn.9:1-3

6. Why did Jesus speak in parables? Betcha miss this one!

7. Who has the keys of death and hell?

8. Who appointed the number of a man's days?

9. Who established a limit to man's days that he cannot pass?

10. Who appointed ALL the times of a man's life?

11. Here is some Bible trivia-- Jesus said that to some a certain thing is given, but to others it is not given. Of what was He speaking? (You won't know this one either)

12. Fill in the blank: "To you it is given not only to _____ in Him, but also to_____for His sake."

Sozo
May 30th, 2004, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst


Romans five primarily concerns the headships of Adam and Christ. If that is not observed, the apostle's point will be missed.

Not exactly. It concerns the condition and position of those in Adam or in Christ.

"For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly"

Jesus died for the "ungodly". Are you claiming that those who are not elected, are not ungodly? Or are you stating that He only died for the "elect" ungodly?

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Are you affirming that Jesus only dies for the "elect" sinners.

For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Again, are the "elect" His enemies, or are you stating that only the "elect" enemies are reconciled?

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Are you claiming that the all in this verse, does not include all men?


There are two headships in Ro. 5--the headship of Adam under which headship we all are

Correct! ALL men are born into this world in Adam.


and the headship of Christ, under which headship are all those whom the Father chose in Christ before the foundation of the world.

God did not "choose" who would be in Christ. The bible does not teach that, nor does it say that. You are making that up, to fit into your theology. God chose that those who are in Him would be holy and blameless... period.


The point is that Adam brought death upon all those under his headship and that Christ brings life to all those under His headship ALL men are born under Adam's headship (as you have already affirmed) and are dead. And those who are in Christ are those who have been justified by faith, and have come from those who were dead in Adam.
Those under the headship of Adam die not because of what THEY did, but because of what their federal head did, and that deadly effect reigned over each and everyone alike.
Agreed! ALL are dead because of Adam's sin.
Those under the headship of Christ, as a consequence of the Father having chosen them in Christ before the foundation of the world LIVE--not because of what THEY do, but because of the effect wrought upon them by their federal head, Christ; Please stop saying that they personally have been "chosen", it's not true, has no biblical support, and it makes you look foolish. Those in Christ have life, because they are saved by grace through faith, and that (salvation by grace) is not of themselves, but is the gift of God. God "chose" that those who receive the gift of grace through faith will receive His life. This is the basic fundemental of the gospel, which you continue to reject.


Death to every son of Adam. Life to every son of Christ. True, but as you have already affirmed, we are ALL born into this world as a child of Adam.
The term "all," used repeatedly by Paul in chapter five, applies to either "all" those in Adam, or "all" those in Christ. But verse 18 clearly says that ALL men have been condemned, and that the same ALL men have the justification of life! The verses do not make a distiction, and your twisting of them to fit your philosophy does an injustice to the text. One act brought death; and one act has brought the justification of life to ALL men.

ALL means ALL


Of course, the entirety of humanity was in Adam, so we all--each and every one of us--came under the reign of death; but not "all" of humanity were chosen in Christ.

Correct, not ALL men were chosen to be holy and blameless, because they must first accept the free gift. It is in Christ that all of what God has chosen from the foundation of the world is realized. Remain in Adam, and you remain dead; or accept the gift of life by grace through faith.


Christ's headship does not apply to each and every individual as Adam's does. No, it doesn't, because the gift must be received.
It applies only to those who, by God's sovereign choice, were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. ... to be holy and blameless :rolleyes:
Christ said of that choosing, "many are called, but few are chosen." That is, as the gospel is declared, the call of God goes out to mankind, but few of them are chosen. That would be ALL mankind, and only those who accept the gift are chosen to receive all that God has predestined for them.

Knight
May 30th, 2004, 11:06 AM
Sozo.... :up:

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 11:07 AM
BIG FINN--Okay, I agree with all you say concerning Christ and the Father. You are straight with Scripture (at least in this regard).

I think some unfortunately try to express themselves through words that are not scriptural. I believe self-exaltation and self infatuation are very weak and ignoble words to use concerning God's first purpose being the manifestation of His own glory. I believe my first post to you expressed my conviction in this regard very thoroughly. I thought you were the one who was ascribing those traits to god. My mistake. As you were, soldier!

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 11:19 AM
SOZO: YOU said, "God did not choose who would be in christ"

The BIBLE says, "...He has chosen us in Him..."

"You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you"

Big Finn
May 30th, 2004, 11:19 AM
Rolf,


BIG FINN--Okay, I agree with all you say concerning Christ and the Father. You are straight with Scripture (at least in this regard).

OK. That's good. I'm actually very glad that you and I agree. Now let's look at the implications of what you just said.

1. Christ's character was that of selflessness.

2. God's character must be one of selflessness then too.

3. Any interpretation of God's actions that leads one to believe that God's character is other than one of selflessness is an incorrect interpretation and is not Biblical.

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 11:23 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sozo [/b verse 18 clearly says that [b]ALL men have been condemned, and that the same ALL men have the justification of life!

SOZO-- Here you say that "verse 18 clearly says...that the 'same' all..."

Verse 18 nowhere says "the same all." Nowhere. You accuse me of twisting scripture, but you are the one who has to add words to scripture to promote your view of it. Check it out. The verse nowhere says, "the same all."

Sozo
May 30th, 2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

SOZO: YOU said, "God did not choose who would be in christ"

The BIBLE says, "...He has chosen us in Him..."

That is the best you can do, after I obliterated your false belief system?

"He has chosen us in Him... to be holy and blameless"


"You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you" He is speaking to His disciples, in that verse, concerning His earthly ministry. It is not a blanket statement to which you can build an entire religion (well then again, maybe YOU can).

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 11:45 AM
SOZO--It is true that Christ was speaking to the disciples of His having chosen them to be His disciples (and one of them was a devil).
But it is accord with the choice God the Father made of some to be in Christ, and in accord with the apostle's statement that "we love Him BECAUSE he first loved us."

The disciples did not make the choice in the matter of them becoming disciples. Christ did, and they followed accordingly. They did not approach Him, but Him approached them as they were occupied with other matters. "Herein is love--not that we loved Him, but that He loved us."

OVers and Arminians reverse the order, claiming to ultimately make the difference between who is elect and who is not. In their view salvation finally hinges not upon what god has done, but upon what THEY choose to do concerning Christ. But the BIBLE says that to some it is given to know and to others it is not given to know, and that to some it is GIVEN to believe in Him.

And all these are in accord with the Old Testamant--"Blessed is the man whom you choose and CAUSE to approach unto you that he may dwell in your courts." Psalm 65:4

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 12:25 PM
Big Finn--I agree with your post #235, except I must with hold total approval until I know what you mean by "selflessness." What would meet the requirements of selflessness as you understand it? And what would contradict it and end up as selfishness?


I gotta go now, and don't know if I'll be back today. Nice talkin' to you, Big finn and you too, Sozo

Big Finn
May 30th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Rolf,


Big Finn--I agree with your post #235, except I must with hold total approval until I know what you mean by "selflessness." What would meet the requirements of selflessness as you understand it? And what would contradict it and end up as selfishness?

Selflessness:
1. Selflessness is what we see expressed in the life of Christ and His mission here on earth. It is at the heart of His every action. Nothing in the life of Christ ever happened that is outside of this principle.

2. Selflessness is also expressed in the sacrifice of what one holds dearest for the good of others, as in the Father sacrficing His Son.

Selfishness:
1. Anything that violates that principle expressed in the life of Christ.

2. Any action that harms others so that the person doing it might look good on the surface.


A statement of fact is not self-exaltation. When God says He is good, kind, loving, merciful, etc... He is not exalting Himself, He is simply telling us who He is.

Knight
May 30th, 2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

That is the best you can do, after I obliterated your false belief system?

"He has chosen us in Him... to be holy and blameless"

He is speaking to His disciples, in that verse, concerning His earthly ministry. It is not a blanket statement to which you can build an entire religion (well then again, maybe YOU can). I was gonna jump on this one Sozo but you answered it almost word for word as I was ready to.

:up:

Sozo
May 30th, 2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Knight

I was gonna jump on this one Sozo but you answered it almost word for word as I was ready to.

:up:

Thank you for the note of encouragement! :)

I suspect that we will find it a constant battle to convince these misguided souls that they are indisputably incorrect in their view of Ephesians 1:4. It is simply the result of stubborn pride, on their part, to stand firm in their bizarre interpretation.

Rolf Ernst
May 30th, 2004, 06:30 PM
Big Finn--Bravo! Who could disagree with post #240??

Z Man
May 30th, 2004, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Knight

No.. no you haven't. All you have shown is that God punishes the wicked and you will get no disagreement from me on that one.

Nowhere in scripture do you find God randomly tormenting innocent people.
There is no such thing as "innocent people". All have sinned and fall short.

The Scriptures I provided proved that God gives diseases to people. You said God doesn't do those things, and the woman was wrong for claiming God gave her cancer - that diseases are created out of "thin air" and just happen. I gave Scripture evidence that proves otherwise. You have yet to give Scripture proof that says "God does not grant people diseases". Frankly, if there were verses that said that, then the Bible would contridict itself.

Le 26:16
I also will do this to you: I [the Lord] will even appoint terror over you, wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

2 Chronicles 21:14-15, 18
...behold, the Lord will strike your people with a serious affliction--your children, your wives, and all your possessions; and you will become very sick with a disease of your intestines, until your intestines come out by reason of the sickness, day by day. ... After all this the Lord struck him in his intestines with an incurable disease.

De 7:15
And the Lord will take away from you all sickness, and will afflict you with none of the terrible diseases of Egypt which you have known, but will lay them on all those who hate you.

De 28:61
Also every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law, will the Lord bring upon you until you are destroyed.

John 11:4
When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

How many times do you need to be told? Cancer isn't "given". Nor is Alzheimer's, or aneurisms or a multitude of other ailments. Apparently you are the only one on this thread that thinks cancer is "given".
Then I must be the only one who is knowledgable of Scripture. And I know I'm not. So, do not assume that everyone is as "Scripturally challenged" as you are...

The Bible clearly tells us that God "gives" diseases to people. It doesn't just "happen", or come out of no where.

I always avoid irrational conclusions.
So Scripture is irrational? You are theologically depraved...

You are wrong! I have responded to your assertions as I have yet again in this post!
You have yet to directly respond to the Scriptures that tell us God gives people diseases. You said they come from no where, but the Bible tells us that God is the one who gives people diseases.

God doesn't randomly torment innocent people.
Of course He doesn't; there are no such thing as innocent people!

Job was a righteous man before God, yet God tormented him. Christ was perfect, and God willed His death. God had women and children killed by the masses in the nations that opposed Israel.

Matthew 5:45
[God] makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

The only biblical examples you have supplied show God punishing wicked people. Therefore you have given ZERO biblical support that God randomly torments innocent people.
I wasn't trying to prove that God randomly torments innocent people. I was simply giving proof that God does give people diseases, as you have vehemently opposed! You do not oppose me or my beliefs my friend, but rather, you directly oppose Scriptures!

:nono:

Now... maybe you missed it but I asked you a question and you avoided it....

You stated that God... "put Job through a life of hell," to which I asked....

Tell me Z Man I am curious... what specifically do you think GOD did to Job?
I answered you in post #183 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=533511#post533511).

Through Satan, God put Job through a life of hard times, taking away everything that he had, to show Job one thing; that He is sovereign. Job saw a glimpse of God's glory (Job 42), and was speechless. Because of Job's sufferings, he was shown the glory of God. That's how God does it; He uses evil and suffering and diseases and what have you to show the world that He is a God of Glory and Holiness. Christ is another perfect example of this.



Knight,

You have yet to prove to us Scripturally that the woman was wrong for claiming that God gave her cancer. You said that diseases come from no where and that they aren't "given". Where does Scripture ever say that?

Your feelings and opinions about who God is will not fly in the search for TRUTH. We must take the TRUTH of Scripture for what it reveals to us. And, as I have pointed out and posted, diseases are truly given, and they are given by God. He doesn't just "punish" the "evil ones"; in fact, God's will is that the "good people" should suffer more than the "evil ones".

1 Peter 3:17
For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

2 Timothy 3:12
Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.

You seem hesitant or afraid to claim that God "suffers" those who are "good". The Bible tells us the exact opposite. Becoming a Christian doesn't mean that life suddenly becomes some sort of cake walk and that God makes sure you have a happy, peaceful life. God desires that we make sacrifices daily. To be persecuted and mocked and go through countless sufferings for Him is pleasing to Him. Who are you to say that the woman who claims God gave her cancer is stupid? She is far more intelligent than you are, and she rightly knows the Scriptures, unlike you. Who knows what God will do with her life and through her afflictions with the disease of cancer....


John 11:4
When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

Z Man
May 30th, 2004, 07:55 PM
Big Finn,

Please check out this post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=533215#post533215). Until you do so, you will never understand my position on God's love for Himself, and will continue to mis-represent my views on the matter. And I will not reply to your ignorant posts. Unless you have something to object against in the post above that I have provided a link to, I do not wish to debate with you and would like it if you would not mis-represent my beliefs in ignorance. Thank you.

Poly
May 30th, 2004, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Z Man

The Scriptures I provided proved that God gives diseases to people. You said God doesn't do those things, and the woman was wrong for claiming God gave her cancer - that diseases are created out of "thin air" and just happen. I gave Scripture evidence that proves otherwise.
No you didn't. Every verse that you've used shows God punishing people. And for specific things they did, not just because they had a sin nature in general.

Big Finn
May 30th, 2004, 08:36 PM
Big Finn--Bravo! Who could disagree with post #240??

I'm glad you agree with it Rolf. However I do believe Calvinism disagrees with it at a very basic level. I'll tell you why.

Calvinism says God ordained sin, and that sin exists to the glory of God. It also says that God has created people to serve no other purpose than for destruction, because He did not create them to be saved--He chose to them for desruction from the foundation of the world.

This fits the the second definition I gave for defining a selfish action--Any action that harms others so that the person doing it might look good on the surface. By holding the position that Calvinism does it in effect says that God is sinful.

And speaking to the post that started this thread...

As you remember you agreed that I was scripturally correct in saying that the character of Christ and the character of God are express images of each other--that basically their characters are one. If God actually gave a person cancer this would be in conflict with character of Christ for I do not believe even a Calvinist would agree that giving a person cancer is something we would have seen Christ do while He was here on earth. He very consistently acted in a manner which is at the opposite end of the spectrum of behavior.

An action like giving a person cancer would be at complete odds with the character Christ exhibited while here on earth. Thus it is completely out of character for God. It would violate His very character.

Big Finn
May 30th, 2004, 08:51 PM
Please check out this post. Until you do so, you will never understand my position on God's love for Himself, and will continue to mis-represent my views on the matter. And I will not reply to your ignorant posts. Unless you have something to object against in the post above that I have provided a link to, I do not wish to debate with you and would like it if you would not mis-represent my beliefs in ignorance. Thank you.

If anyone "misrepresented" your position it was you. All I did was: 1. Take you at your word. 2. Repeat your words just as you said them.

If you don't want people to believe what you write, then put a disclaimer at the head of your posts saying that you don't really believe what you are putting in your posts. Don't expect me to go read someplace else where you disagreed with what you posted here. If you can't be consistent in your declaration of your beliefs don't blame others for your mistakes.

As to what I said to Rolf, all I did was basically quote you so he would know just what the situation was, for he thought I had said what you did. I was correcting his mistaken assumption that I was the one that had said what you said. That is no misrepresentation of you in the slightest. It is simply a recital of the facts.

Z Man
May 30th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Big Finn

If anyone "misrepresented" your position it was you. All I did was: 1. Take you at your word. 2. Repeat your words just as you said them.

If you don't want people to believe what you write, then put a disclaimer at the head of your posts saying that you don't really believe what you are putting in your posts. Don't expect me to go read someplace else where you disagreed with what you posted here. If you can't be consistent in your declaration of your beliefs don't blame others for your mistakes.

As to what I said to Rolf, all I did was basically quote you so he would know just what the situation was, for he thought I had said what you did. I was correcting his mistaken assumption that I was the one that had said what you said. That is no misrepresentation of you in the slightest. It is simply a recital of the facts.
Just read the post...

Z Man
May 30th, 2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Poly

No you didn't. Every verse that you've used shows God punishing people. And for specific things they did, not just because they had a sin nature in general.
Poly,

Job was a righteous man; God had women and children killed in all the nations that opposed Israel; Christ was sinless; and all those who follow Christ are persecuted and must suffer (it's better to suffer for good than for evil).

Besides that, the point was Knight specifically stated that God does not give people diseases - they just come out of thin air. I proved him wrong. Scripture states otherwise.