ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[godrulz]

Amen Clete, my thoughts exactly! I was just sharing with Poly last night that some of these folks on here using their $10.00 words and phrases frankly bore me.
I totally understood what you have just said, it made total sense and I agree 100%.

Why is it so many so called religious folks think they have to talk that way. Bob Enyart is probably about the most intelligent man I have ever heard speaking of spiritual things and I have always been able to understand and follow his train of thought. Why do some folks feel a need to talk in (as you put it) code?

Lola

Post 2018...can Clete or someone summarize what he is trying to say? I have not been able to figure out his Adam views (other posts were even more convoluted).

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Post 2018...can Clete or someone summarize what he is trying to say? I have not been able to figure out his Adam views (other posts were even more convoluted).

Godrulz, I have told you more than once that I am a 'female in Adam person', married to a 'male in Adam person'.

You do not understand, IMO, only if you continue to go at the Scriptures from a Greek/ Babylonian basis, and not from the Hebrew teachings; and so you cannot understand from the Scriptures that you are a person 'in Adam'; and then you cannot explain to anyone why Jesus Christ is a Person 'in YHWH'. So you are left to use the same Greek philosophy based doctrines to explain what can only be learned in the oracles commited to the Jews.

Hbr 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."

But I provided God's Words, amply, on the subject on our being called 'Adam', in the day we were created by our Creator; which is the given name of our entire race. In English we say 'man'; but God called us 'Adam', in Hebrew.

So what is man? -or what is Adam?
Adam is a created being, made 'one' Spirit, male and female, who was to multiply and fill this earth [until it was full] and inhabit it forever as sons of God.
Genesis 1:26-28; Malachi 2:15; Psalm 8; Psalm 115:16; Luke 3:38.

A son of god is a dwelling 'place' for the Father's Presence of glory to indwell. John 14:1-3

The Jewish temple represents the house, the inner house, and the Holy of Holies: in the end we who are adopted and regenerated in body and glorified will be the true Holy of Holies in which the glory of the Father's Presence abides forever. -and that is what the 'house' of Adam was to have been and fell from; and we all fell in our first, firstborn, as his seed.

In the New Man we will be adopted and be that inner house in the true temple [God and the Lamb; Revelation 21:22; "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."], for the Father's glory to indwell.

John 14:1-3 speaks of Jesus' going to "the cross", to "make" 'us' dwelling places -for the Father; which Adam was, in the beginning.

He came to bring many sons 'to glory' by the ransom of them and the ransom of the kingdom that Adam was given and sold.

Where is 'code' in that?

If you get into the Word from beginning to end the message is plain -leaving Greek Babylonian mixes behind. David had a taste of understanding it, and was awed, in 2 Samuel 7. Haggai 2 explains it, after first teaching of holiness and cleanness; and in verse 9, the glory of the latter house [of the New Man] is said to be greater than the glory of the first house. In that chapter the temple of man is the true meaning, for the second Jewish temple never fullfilled the promise made by YHWH about that second temple, or 'house'; but the promise is seen fullfilled in Revelation chapter 21:

Haggai 2:9 "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts."

Rev 21:2 "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."
Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.

The City of God (which is still being built of men redeemed [from Adam] from all tribes and tongues and nations, is we who are born again spiritually, and when we are regenerated in body, also, we shall be fully glorified with the Father's glory; and therefore we are the true Holy of Holies for all eternity that the oracle taught of, and which Haggai chapter 2 speaks of, as having more glory than the former house [the house of Adam].

And Godrulz, I have lost respect for you as a professing Christian, though I do not say you are not born again: but the things I say and give reasons for from Scripture you have never bothered to go to the Scriptures and see if they are so, nor have you ever given one denouncement of those Scriptures with other Scriptures; but denounce me because I do not speak your 'eze'.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

What part isn't code? Do you get some sort of pleasure from having to explain virtually every thing you say? Notice that you didn't find it to be an unexpected or unusual question I asked about what you meant by "The Church of Jesus Christ". That alone should be enough to demonstrate that your manner of speaking is cryptic.
...
Clete

As to your accusation of my being cryptic, I think of the closing of the eyes of Israel by YHWH;

Isa 29:10-13; "For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which [men] deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it [is] sealed:
And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:..."

He, alone, can open and close eyes -so who am I?-

As to this thread: Calvin was just another man, and those who teach calvinism teach the precepts of men who base their understanding on Greek/Babylonian philosophies and not on the first principles taught in the oracles of God commited to the Jews; and there is a blindness brought by YHWH upon those who espouse doctrines of men, according to the above passage.

As to your strange accusation of my remark about the Church of Jesus Christ:
I assume everyone who reads the Word knows that there is just one Church of Jesus Christ, though many meeting 'places' for those in His church; and the names of its members are recorded in heaven, and which Church is being built by Jesus Christ; and that it is made of born again -from above- people from every tribe and tongue and nation: but that they may meet under denominational names, which is not 'right', according to 1 Corinthians 1:11-13, but is done, anyway.

1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

And I'll take care not to answer your rantings anymore, as you have no interest in anything but attacking me.

 

[godrulz]

It seems I am not the only one who cannot figure out your novel views. Perhaps they are not as self-evident or biblical as you think. Where did you first get your ideas (source)?

To be honest, I have not tried hard to understand them line by line. It does not seem like a major issue.

Sorry for the gender confusion.

 

[Z Man]

[God] will bring His project/purposes to pass, but He does not need to control every moral/mundane choice to do so.

...[God] can intervene when He wants to for a higher good.

I don't get why you believe God can intervene when He wants to for a higher good sometimes, but not all of the time. What's the difference?

 

[godrulz]

I don't get why you believe God can intervene when He wants to for a higher good sometimes, but not all of the time. What's the difference?

There are two motifs in Scripture: God settles some of the future, but other aspects He leaves unsettled and open.

As a parent, if my child is going to do drugs, become a prostitute, run in front of a car, bring a gun to school, etc., I will intervene as often and forcefully as necessary.

As a loving, wise parent, other times I will allow significant freedom and stand back, even if it means the child will learn a hard lesson. If my kids get a speeding ticket, I do not bail them out. My daughter paid for her car accident to learn responsibility. I could have bailed her out, but I did not. I helped her work through the issues of having a fault accident. I walked alongside her and shared my wisdom and support without controlling or taking full responsibility myself. This will lead to her growth and maturation.

God disciplines His children out of love (Heb. 12). This does not mean He always keeps us from harm or negates consequences of our stupid choices. He desires mature growing children, not immature, dependent brats who never learn and grow.

God is the perfect parent, yet Israel went astray. God is the perfect King, yet aspects of His world are in rebellion and some of the Church is lukewarm at best.

God could have had a slave-master, computer-programmer, robot-maker relationship with us if He wanted to. He chose genuine reciprocal love relationships as a higher good. This meant that He does not always get His way, and that we do not always do the perfect thing. He can still guide things to fruition without controlling every mundane choice along the way. It takes a greater God to do this than one who has to control to the point of negating responsibility, potential for love/freedom.

Surely this is the biblical portrait of the loving, living God. A deterministic, fatalistic view is in line with Allah and Islam, but do not foist it on YHWH.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

It seems I am not the only one who cannot figure out your novel views. Perhaps they are not as self-evident or biblical as you think. Where did you first get your ideas (source)?

To be honest, I have not tried hard to understand them line by line. It does not seem like a major issue.

Sorry for the gender confusion.

I have the "apparent misfortune" of being able to "think" about the Word of God and to have asked Him to "open my eyes that I might behold wondrous things out of His law".

But I am not able to say that I have come to understand the Word of God differently than others who read it and think and have written and spoken of it through the ages.
Among my favorite preachers are Dr Martyn Llyod Jones and many anointed Baptists; probably more of the preachers I have heard in my youth who influenced me by the anointed preaching were fundamentalist Baptist -not all they say was held by me, but the anointed preaching I heard in my childhood grabbed me, and gave me a hunger for the Word when the LORD did save me many years later; and I came into the kingdom through the intercessory prayers of my elder sis, a Southern Baptist preacher's wife who always seems to have a book in her hubby's library written by some man of God, that has a point in it about the same thing that I share with her, that I am seeing in the Word.

It is just learning the message as given in the oracles, which is completely separated from the Calvin -protestant -Roman usual ramblings.
Many Messianic Jews have shed light when I've searched a point out online, or those men of God who understand the message in the oracles have shed light and still shed light, on the true message as given in the oracles.
I'm still learning.
-and BTW; C. S. Lewis grabbed the truths in a lot of things that are ignored and made them part of his fiction -for that, he gets praises; maybe I'll go write a good fiction: that's about the only way some people want to read doctrine, sometimes -IMO .

 

[Z Man]

Godrulz,

I don't think you answered my question. This was about the closest you got:

This meant that He does not always get His way, and that we do not always do the perfect thing. He can still guide things to fruition without controlling every mundane choice along the way. It takes a greater God to do this than one who has to control to the point of negating responsibility, potential for love/freedom.

But, again, it doesn't address the issue I asked about. You believe, as you have stated, that God can get His way sometimes, just not all the time - that He intervenes only when He needs to and that's it.

Surely, when God does intervene, that means He overrides people's so-called freedoms, correct? Then why is it OK in your opinion if God does this only some of the time, and not all of the time? It appears to me that you want it both ways - freedom from God's control, yet God being in control. Please, collaborate (if possible, without writing a book please.. ).

God bless.

 

[godrulz]

Godrulz,

I don't think you answered my question. This was about the closest you got:

But, again, it doesn't address the issue I asked about. You believe, as you have stated, that God can get His way sometimes, just not all the time - that He intervenes only when He needs to and that's it.

Surely, when God does intervene, that means He overrides people's so-called freedoms, correct? Then why is it OK in your opinion if God does this only some of the time, and not all of the time? It appears to me that you want it both ways - freedom from God's control, yet God being in control. Please, collaborate (if possible, without writing a book please.. ).

God bless.

God's interventions do not always override freedom. He can keep a ship from sinking without affecting the free wills of the people on board. Some missionaries have been raped and killed. God did not directly intervene. Hitler killed millions of Jews. God could have snuffed Hitler, but He did not. Others have experienced angelic beings encamped around them on the mission fielf. The local thugs were scared off by God's intervention. This did not directly affect anyone's wills. God's interventions can be influences, persuasion, etc. without being causative or coercive. It is a rare exception for God to suspend free will and never so when it relates to personal salvation issues.

God parting the Red Sea did not involve individual freedom, but it did remove some options. He did not make the people jump into the water and drown themselves. They freely pursued the Israelites, and God changed nature to judge them.

What examples do you suggest to prove exhaustive control? Even if you have one, that does not mean that it is the only or normative way that God always works (that would be an unwarranted extrapolation beyond the text). God openned prison doors to let believer's go free. That does not mean He always does so (some Christians died in Roman prisons). God healed some, but not all people. God raised Lazarus, but He lets most of us rot. God saved Noah and animals, but many other godly people have perished at sea. God cannot be put in a box. He is sovereign in what He does or does not do. God rescued one from a fiery furnace or lion's den. Other believers have perished in fires or been killed by animals (see Heb. 11...not everyone received the promises before death).

 

[Turbo]

What part isn't code? Do you get some sort of pleasure from having to explain virtually every thing you say?

...You will no doubt want to chalk that up to a lack of spirituality on their part but it has nothing to do with that.

...I'd bet my left arm that you claim some sort of spiritual victory when someone gets fed up and blows you off. It's prideful and should be avoided.

As to your accusation of my being cryptic, I think of the closing of the eyes of Israel by YHWH;

You sure called that one, Clete!

 

[Yorzhik]

thelaqachisnext is a girl... that explains everything.

 

[Clete]

You sure called that one, Clete!

Yep!

I hate it when Christians effectively claim that the fact that everyone misunderstands them is evidence that they are right. It's just pathetic :nono:

 

[Urizen]

Yes. He can override free will by brute force, but He usually does not. Hitler and the masses going to hell show that God allows significant freedom, but with consequences. God is omnipotent.

But if God can intervene and chooses not to, doesn't this render him in effect responsible for everything that happens.

For example, you see a child playing the street and coming down that street you see a car. You know that unless you intervene the child will be hit and likely killed and that you have plenty of time to intervene without any treat to yourself. If you stand aside and allow the child, would you not then bear some, if not all, of the responsibility for that child's death?

 

[Z Man]

What examples do you suggest to prove exhaustive control? Even if you have one, that does not mean that it is the only or normative way that God always works (that would be an unwarranted extrapolation beyond the text).

There is no reason to post examples to prove God's exhaustive control if you already have it made up in your mind that even if there were such examples, it doesn't prove anything. Which brings me back to my original question:

Why do you believe God can intervene sometimes but not all of the time?

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't get why you believe God can intervene when He wants to for a higher good sometimes, but not all of the time. What's the difference?

It's not that He can't, it's that He doesn't.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

thelaqachisnext is a girl... that explains everything.

Nope, not a girl anymore; a female; wife of one man for forty two years +; mother of seven adult children; grandmother of at least 16 grandchildren; and born again Believer in the LORD Jesus Christ.
And may I ask if Clete is the chief duffelpod around here? -sure sounds like it!

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Yep!

I hate it when Christians effectively claim that the fact that everyone misunderstands them is evidence that they are right. It's just pathetic :nono:

U-M-M- I don't think I cried that song. However; I did say I thought of a passage and quoted it.
In fact, the things you accused me of in your attack I had already refuted in a prior post.
Have fun attacking, since it is the best you can do, it seems.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

You sure called that one, Clete!

you remind me of a dufflepod. -the more I think about your comment made without reading what I have written and knowing what I do say, 'methinks' that you are a dufflepod plant. -yes! yes! so right chief!

"Originally Posted by Clete

What part isn't code? Do you get some sort of pleasure from having to explain virtually every thing you say?

...You will no doubt want to chalk that up to a lack of spirituality on their part but it has nothing to do with that.

...I'd bet my left arm that you claim some sort of spiritual victory when someone gets fed up and blows you off. It's prideful and should be avoided."

I think Clete has been willing to make a foolish bet, because if he had, he'd be in dire need to go get the left arm removed and given to whomever he was willing to bet it to, because you can search every post I have ever made on any forum and you will not find such things said by me that you have claimed. -no place, no where, no time.

I can call someone biblically illiterate, but biblical illiteracy is not a lack of spirituality; it may be a sign of laziness and sloth, or other things; but not of a lack of spirituality; and no place have I ever claimed that one is more spiritual for understanding more of the revealed truths of Scripture; for Paul said we can understand all mysteries and not have love, and without love we are as tinckling brass -etc.
The passage in Isaiah 29 is about teaching the doctrines of men and missing the message in the oracles, of salvation, and being blinded by YHWH for refusing His Word and teaching men's words. so far Clete is not teaching anything that I have seen, just blowing off about what Scriptures I use and speak about with the understanding that I have.
If this is a forum for discussing theology ="God Word", then where are the discussions of God's Word?

Now go on acting like a dufflepod. -Lewis 'called you', on that one!

 

[Poly]

But if God can intervene and chooses not to, doesn't this render him in effect responsible for everything that happens.

For example, you see a child playing the street and coming down that street you see a car. You know that unless you intervene the child will be hit and likely killed and that you have plenty of time to intervene without any treat to yourself. If you stand aside and allow the child, would you not then bear some, if not all, of the responsibility for that child's death?

God knew we chose to play in the street even though we were told not to do so. He sees "the car coming down the street" (Destruction heading for us because of our disobedience and sin). He knew something had to be done. It wasn't enough for God to just overlook it just as the parent knew he couldn't. A sacrifice was going to have to be made in order for the disobedient child to be saved and the loving parent chose to intervene so the child wouldn't die (Christ's willingness to save us because in our disobedience we couldn't save ourselves from eternal destruction and separation from God). So he runs out with plenty of time to save the child but the child lays down in the middle of the street, bucking and screaming, doing everything he can, fighting so hard against the parents attempt to pull him to safety in his refusal to comply, time runs out which ends up being death for him. But the loving parent never gave up on the child, giving him the opportunity to accept the help, refusing to save himself by jumping out of the way at just the right time. The love for his child was so great and was so desperate for him to comply before time ran out, he couldn't bring himself to leave ultimately knowing it meant he himself would die. The child died because of his determination to stay in the street refusing to accept the help that was available and ended up paying the consequence of death that came for his disobedience. The parent ended up having to sacrifice paying that same cosequence though he was not disobedient and was loving and desired to do the right thing.

 

[Clete]

U-M-M- I don't think I cried that song. However; I did say I thought of a passage and quoted it.
In fact, the things you accused me of in your attack I had already refuted in a prior post.
Have fun attacking, since it is the best you can do, it seems.

:doh: No one was attacking you! I was actually trying to be helpful.
But this reaction is entirely expected. Turbo was entirely correct. You instantly did precisely what I predicted you would do. What's really bad is that you did it even though I had just said that you would! Good grief woman! My 5 year old would have been smart enough to avoid that obvious mistake.

At any rate, what I said before, I meant. I honestly don't care whether you listen to a word I said or not. All I was trying to do was to clue you in to the fact that the reason people instantly blow you off all the time has nothing to do with anything other than your intentional use of a foreign language. If you want to go on being ignored, then knock yourself out, it's no skin off my nose.

Resting in Him,
Clete