ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Z Man]

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]

Lesser of two evils ...

Lesser of two evils ...

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]

Originally posted by Poly

:up:

Follow Scripture; not the teachings of men (Enyart, Knight)...

 

[Z Man]

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]

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]

In all this ...

In all this ...

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]

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]

Did you read it?

Did you read it?

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]

Yes. Or maybe you misunderstood Job. Maybe Job merely meant that God allowed it to be taken away.

 

[boogerhead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.