Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

[Nang]

Are you sure you want to stand behind this... theology? Consider what it does to the rest of the Bible.

Geniesis 3
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will become evil.' " 4 "You will not surely become evil," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and death ."



Death and evil are not the same thing. Death is to know nothing. Evil is to knowingly and intentionally act against God.

Death is evil, and it is the just sentence deserved by all sinners.

To "knowingly and intentionally act against God" is SIN.

SIN produces evil fruit of all kinds, as a sovereign judgment from God, who will dispense justice according to the evil fruits of sin.


Are you willing to go public, and declare God was less than good to sentence men to death for sin?

For that is the "evil" that is being discussed . . .

Nang

 

[godrulz]

godrulz: You are stupid.

Paul says that he is:

Free from sin.

Free from the law of sin and death.

No longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit.

You say:

Paul is in bondage to sin.

Paul is a wretched man

Paul is a prisoner of the law of sin and death.

Paul is in the flesh.

It is obvious that you are a liar.

I did not say Paul was in bondage to sin (you wrongly assume that one sinful thought puts one into perpetual bondage negating the possibility of repentance and cleansing by Christ and no repeated wrong thoughts in that area). I did not say Paul was a wretched man because he may have had one wrong motive after conversion. He was a new creature in Christ, not a wretched man (one wrong motive does not return him to his previous godless state). Paul was set free. He had life in Christ. This does not preclude the possibility of one wrong thought or motive (sin) that has provision for by Christ. One wrong thought does not return you to a state of flesh without the Spirit.

Your theology does not explain the Corinthian lapses and sins (Paul called them saints, yet rebuked their fleshly sin).

There were antinomian views in church history that said God can see no sin in a believer. The so-called sins are not really sins, but works of the old man (Lighthouse plays these games too). They are not reckoned to the believer since he is free from the law, perfect in Christ, glories in grace, etc. These sinless perfection ideas prevailed among some Anabaptists, Libertines, the Hattemists, and certain sects in England and in New England.

Knight has tried to clear this up for you, to no avail. Unless you are prepared to say that Knight is a godless unbeliever because he agrees with me and not you on this point (can a Christian sin without reverting back to a state of godless unbelief?), you should zip the lip, fermez la bouche.

In your black and white world, I am stupid because I disagree with you. In fairness, I am somewhere on a continuum between stupid and smart, depending on the subject.

 

[Mystery]

I did not say Paul was in bondage to sin (you wrongly assume that one sinful thought puts one into perpetual bondage negating the possibility of repentance and cleansing by Christ and no repeated wrong thoughts in that area). I did not say Paul was a wretched man because he may have had one wrong motive after conversion. He was a new creature in Christ, not a wretched man (one wrong motive does not return him to his previous godless state). Paul was set free. He had life in Christ. This does not preclude the possibility of one wrong thought or motive (sin) that has provision for by Christ. One wrong thought does not return you to a state of flesh without the Spirit.

Your theology does not explain the Corinthian lapses and sins (Paul called them saints, yet rebuked their fleshly sin).

There were antinomian views in church history that said God can see no sin in a believer. The so-called sins are not really sins, but works of the old man (Lighthouse plays these games too). They are not reckoned to the believer since he is free from the law, perfect in Christ, glories in grace, etc. These sinless perfection ideas prevailed among some Anabaptists, Libertines, the Hattemists, and certain sects in England and in New England.

Knight has tried to clear this up for you, to no avail. Unless you are prepared to say that Knight is a godless unbeliever because he agrees with me and not you on this point (can a Christian sin without reverting back to a state of godless unbelief?), you should zip the lip, fermez la bouche.

godrulz... I am neither confirming or denying that Christians sin. That is NOT the topic of this thread, and it has nothing to do with what I posted in my response to AMR about Romans 7.

You are really, really, stupid.

And once again, you do not know what an antinomian is, so stop using the term until you do.

 

[godrulz]

godrulz... I am neither confirming or denying that Christians sin. That is NOT the topic of this thread, and it has nothing to do with what I posted in my response to AMR about Romans 7.

You are really, really, stupid.

And once again, you do not know what an antinomian is, so stop using the term until you do.

There are a variety of antinomian type views (some more subtle than others). You deny that Christians sin, unless you have modified your views (which is possible). It is relevant to a discussion of Romans 6-8 (sanctification) so don't be stupid and think it does not cloud your interpretations of the passage.

I have not been following what you and AMR are discussing about the passage. I did a paper on it in college and remember that it was not an easy passage to interpret and that many great commentators had a variety of views about it. Your preconceived theology will influence how you interpret the passage. Remember the context. It is likely that some of it is pre and some post conversion.

 

[PKevman]

To Ask Mr. Religion and Nang,

I was disturbed by the fact that you two believe that every evil and wicked thing that happens is a result of Gods will (God wants it to happen).

It was claimed by Ask Mr. Religion that:



This just does not make sense. In response I claimed that it seemed so wrong to me. To which Nang replied:



Nang then claimed that because I didn't believe the way you two do I was a vessel of wrath:



I then stated how wicked it was to claim that God is responsible for all the wickedness and evil in the world.

Ask Mr. Religion replied that:



This literally made me sick to my stomach. It is as if you think that God NEEDS evil for His goodness to be made known. This is so silly. God was good before the fall…when there was no evil.

Nang then replied with an odd statement:



This is odd because Nang not only believes that God sees all that transpires (which I agree with)…but that He predestined all to happen from eternity past!

Because of this I think it is odd that Nang and Ask Mr. Religion get upset with people on this thread because everything that people write was destined to be done from before the foundation of the world! How can you get upset with someone when they are doing that which God wants them to do?

Remember, it was you Mr. Religion that stated:



So, I have waited to post for a few days to think about what I should do. I thought about what it was that God had destined me to do from eternity past.

What I did was to make a little video so that I can post it here to help people understand the views of Nang and Ask Mr. Religion (and Pastor Cook http://www.unchainedradio.com/new/index.php).

It was put together rather quickly so it may be kind of cheesy…but I just wanted to help spread the "truths" of what Nang and Mr. Religion teach:

It is Good

Jason this is very well done. And makes a powerful point. AMR and Calvinism are wicked to the core for suggesting God ordains wickedness and evil acts. Calvinism needs to be repudiated at every turn for the false doctrine that it is.

Good job! :up:

 

[PKevman]

Chatmaggot gets my SPOTD award for his powerful YouTube video that utterly annihilates Calvinism as a false and evil doctrine. :first:

 

[Mystery]

There are a variety of antinomian type views (some more subtle than others).

Again, you don't have a clue.

You deny that Christians sin, unless you have modified your views (which is possible).

You need to shut the hell up, and stop purposely trying to stir the pot. My conversations on this thread have nothing to do with whether or not Christians can sin. In fact, since I have been using this username, I have not discussed that issue with anyone.

I have not been following what you and AMR are discussing about the passage. I did a paper on it in college and remember that it was not an easy passage to interpret and that many great commentators had a variety of views about it. Your preconceived theology will influence how you interpret the passage. Remember the context. It is likely that some of it is pre and some post conversion.

You are really pissing me off with your godless self-righteous condescending crap. Just get the hell off this thread unless you want to discuss the topic at hand.

If you do, and you want to actually read my post (which I know you won't), let's state right now that not only could Paul sin after conversion, but ALL Christians can sin after conversion. It will not effect one thing I said regarding Romans 7 in the slightest.

Now, either get with the program or get lost.

 

[Clete]

Sorry you don't get it . . .

Evil is the consequential judgment from God against sin. Which is called "justice."

A simple example that maybe even you might grasp.

"The wages of sin (caused by man) is death (evil)." Romans 6:23

Offense and sin against God deserves sentence and punishment, and that sentence and punishment is death.

This is a legal rendering.

And the legal rendering is just and good, because it is deserved.

Thus, when you say that death is not evil and justice is not good, you are saying God is a dirty, rotten, unfair Judge.

Not too wise to harbor such thoughts about the Judge who will Judge you someday!

There is still time for you to repent . . .

Nang

Hey Nang, guess what. Justice is not evil, it is the opposite of it.

Death is not sin nor is it evil. Death is the result of evil. Murder is evil but death is not. God commanded that capital criminals be put to death. Was that command evil? No! Of course not, it was just! Justice and righteousness are the same thing, not justice and evil.




Is anyone else's mind being blown by the things Nang is willing to say in public? Because every time she posts I feel like I'm on the Candid Camera show or something. I just can't even believe that anyone can actually believe this stuff! And then she tops it off by telling us that we have time to repent! She's gotta be making this stuff up as she goes! I mean, I know shes not and that she really does believe this ridiculous nonsense but it just flabbergasts me, that's all. :freak:


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Aimey]

nang

death

cannot be both just and evil

at the same time

 

[CabinetMaker]

Death is evil, and it is the just sentence deserved by all sinners.

To "knowingly and intentionally act against God" is SIN.

SIN produces evil fruit of all kinds, as a sovereign judgment from God, who will dispense justice according to the evil fruits of sin.


Are you willing to go public, and declare God was less than good to sentence men to death for sin?

For that is the "evil" that is being discussed . . .

Nang

Death and evil are not the same thing. Physical death ends our life on Earth. Spiritual death ends our eternal life with God.

Evil is opposition to God. Satan is evil because He knows God and actively works to ruin God's plan. Evil opposes God. Death is a result of evil.

 

[Nang]

nang

death

cannot be both just and evil

at the same time

Sure it can and it is.

Death is the evil sinners deserve as judgment for their sins, according to the good justice of God.

Nang

 

[Mystery]

Sure it can and it is.

Death is the evil sinners deserve as judgment for their sins, according to the good justice of God.

Nang

So, the death of Jesus was evil? Is that right?

 

[PKevman]

Evil opposes God.

Good point. And God opposes evil. And when Calvinists try to say that evil is ordained by God they are misrepresenting the holy and righteous God of the universe.

 

[Nang]

Death and evil are not the same thing. Physical death ends our life on Earth. Spiritual death ends our eternal life with God.

Evil is opposition to God. Satan is evil because He knows God and actively works to ruin God's plan. Evil opposes God. Death is a result of evil.

CB,

Go spend two months in your bedroom reading the Bible, and then come back to post on TOL, for right now, you do not know what you are talking about.

Nang

 

[CabinetMaker]

CB,

Go spend two months in your bedroom reading the Bible, and then come back to post on TOL, for right now, you do not know what you are talking about.

Nang

Grandma, its way past your bed time. I think its time for you to log off, say your prayers and go to sleep. Come back tomorrow when you are will rested a re-read you posts here tonight. I think you'll find it is you who needs to study what the Bible has to say about death and evil, not I.

 

[Mystery]

Nang... Was the death of Jesus evil? Yes or No?

 

[Nang]

Nang... Was the death of Jesus evil? Yes or No?

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was evil brought forth from hatred in the hearts of men towards God; however, in the hands of God, the death of Jesus Christ was the greatest good.

God's justice performed is good.

God judging sin is good.

God overcoming sin, evil, death, and the crucifixion of His Son, by His power and grace, which is shared with His elect . . .is good.

Nang

 

[Varangian]

So, the death of Jesus was evil? Is that right?

I fail to see how one could view the murder of Jesus by Jewish and Roman authorities as anything but evil.

 

[Nang]

I fail to see how one could view the murder of Jesus by Jewish and Roman authorities as anything but evil.

They meant it as evil, but God meant it for good.

Spiritual and Biblical principle:

Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28.

Look these Scriptures up! Read them for yourself! The answer is found, therein.

Nang

 

[patman]

They meant it as evil, but God meant it for good.

Spiritual and Biblical principle:

Genesis 50:20 and Romans 8:28.

Look these Scriptures up! Read them for yourself! The answer is found, therein.

Nang

Do you think God caused the evil, or that he caused good to come from the evil that someone else caused?