ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

drbrumley

Well-known member
Z Man said:
If none of those happened, we'd be on a different planet!

Seriously, the difference between our views and yours is that we believe God is in control in all of those situations, where you believe... well... those individuals themselves are in control. I'm sorry, but I'd rather put my trust in a God who is in complete control. It would be a scary world indeed if He wasn't...
Right from the horses mouth.

Let us take comfort in knowing that when a brutal rapist rapes His victim, the victim can take comfort in knowing God did this to her essentially by giving the rapist the opportunity to defile what should NEVER have been defiled. Her body. Yeah Z Man, that makes alot of sense.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Z Man said:
Funny, I've tried that with you (John 9 with Exodus 4), but you reject it. So far, you have not impressed me with any sort of substantial evidence to make your point other than your 'feelings' on the matter.


It is an exegetical fallacy to remove isolated texts from their context and create an artificial parallel to support a deductive idea. Unless the Spirit quotes the OT (see Jesus in Gospels and writer of Hebrews 1), I would be slow to string verses together to support your preconceived ideas (JWs have a bad habit of doing this).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Z Man said:
If none of those happened, we'd be on a different planet!

Seriously, the difference between our views and yours is that we believe God is in control in all of those situations, where you believe... well... those individuals themselves are in control. I'm sorry, but I'd rather put my trust in a God who is in complete control. It would be a scary world indeed if He wasn't...


God is not responsible for heinous evil. If He was, He could not righteously judge the wicked as He says He does. Free will is not incompatible with God's sovereignty, properly understood.
 

Catatumba

New member
drbrumley said:
Right from the horses mouth.

Let us take comfort in knowing that when a brutal rapist rapes His victim, the victim can take comfort in knowing God did this to her essentially by giving the rapist the opportunity to defile what should NEVER have been defiled. Her body. Yeah Z Man, that makes alot of sense.
Boy, he probably enjoy reading the book of Leviticus. Try chapter 15; it should give you some food for thought.
In the Old Scriptures the Hebrew God calls a felony for what it is; but what is just must be always at hand.
Lev.19 has some ideas.
 

Catatumba

New member
godrulz said:
God is not responsible for heinous evil. If He was, He could not righteously judge the wicked as He says He does. Free will is not incompatible with God's sovereignty, properly understood.
Or felonies of Lessa Humanidad.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Z Man said:
You may beleive God has the capacity to act, but when I insist, through passages from the Scriptures, that He fulfills that capacity, you guys object.
You show me from scripture that God predetirmins some things and I will not protest. I absolutly agree that there are examples in the Bible where God caused things to happen.
Which means it doesn't matter if you believe God could have His way all the time, because you don't believe He'll ever act upon that 'reserved' right.
God absolutly acts upon that right., except for when he doesn't
As soon as I say He does act upon the capacity to do as He pleases in every circumstance, you goes go nuts. Why? Because that theology kills off the idea of a freewill.
That is because, most of the time, it pleases God to allow people to chose him freely
Thus, you guys inevitable put freewill, or the self-imposed right of humans to do things their way, ahead of God's soveriegn glory.
Rights and abilities granted by God are not self-imposed you dingbat!
 

Z Man

New member
Evee said:
Then if someone intentionally kills a child it is hard to understand why God allows it?
His purposes are greater than ours. He sees the big picture.
So are you saying all the things I or you have done was not our choice??
We make our own choices, but not apart from what God has already ordained.

Proverbs16:9; 21:1
A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.

The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.
 

Z Man

New member
drbrumley said:
Right from the horses mouth.

Let us take comfort in knowing that when a brutal rapist rapes His victim, the victim can take comfort in knowing God did this to her essentially by giving the rapist the opportunity to defile what should NEVER have been defiled. Her body. Yeah Z Man, that makes alot of sense.
You place a great deal more importance on people's 'comforts' than God's will to work through people's lives, sometimes through suffering.
 

Z Man

New member
godrulz said:
It is an exegetical fallacy to remove isolated texts from their context and create an artificial parallel to support a deductive idea. Unless the Spirit quotes the OT (see Jesus in Gospels and writer of Hebrews 1), I would be slow to string verses together to support your preconceived ideas (JWs have a bad habit of doing this).
So presenting an argument and quoting from Scriptures means I'm a JW now? I had no idea...
God is not responsible for heinous evil.
:sigh:

For the 1,000,000th time, I've never said that.
 

Z Man

New member
deardelmar said:
That is because, most of the time, it pleases God to allow people to chose him freely.
For God to expect us to just wake up one day and choose to love Him is like putting a dog's food bowl just outside of his reach on a leash. We have to be saved in order to love God; He has to set us free from the chains first - then we'll love Him freely.
Rights and abilities granted by God are not self-imposed you dingbat!
God granting us the 'right' to freewill is like putting a 2 yr old in charge of the country.

Besides, what makes you think He owes us that right?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Z Man said:
Clete,

You take the saying 'ignorance is bliss' literally. You know very well that if anyone was to say God ordains everything for His glory, thus extinguishing the need or existence of a freewill, you'd go nuts and say it's not so.
No I wouldn't, I would ask them to establish such nonsense Biblically if they could, which they couldn't because the whole notion is self-contradictory given the message of the Bible and the nature of not only right and wrong but our whole existence.

You, and every other Open Theist on this site, are willing to proclaim that it's ok to say God can not have His way all of the time - to sacrifice a little of His exuberant and supreme glory - in light of a human's self-imposed right to have it their way.
What we deny is that there is any such dichotomy. God sacrifices nothing of His glory by giving us the ability to love (and therefore necessarily the ability to hate) Him.

Thus - maybe not all of the time, but in some instances - freewill to you is more important than God's glory.
It is not more important. God could have created mindless automatons and been glorified in the doing of it (don't ask me how but I'm sure its possible) but He decided to create beings with the ability to choose and is glorified in the doing of that as well. Your entire argument here is based on a false dichotomy.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

seekinganswers

New member
Z Man said:
For God to expect us to just wake up one day and choose to love Him is like putting a dog's food bowl just outside of his reach on a leash. We have to be saved in order to love God; He has to set us free from the chains first - then we'll love Him freely.

God granting us the 'right' to freewill is like putting a 2 yr old in charge of the country.

Besides, what makes you think He owes us that right?

This assumes that human nature is so depraved that it is beyond hope. Even Augustine did not go this far.

God's grace is sufficient for humanity as a whole. I love the way in which Wesley talks about it. If we are alive at all, we have hope. For our very life is grace from God. "Preventing Grace" is the grace that does not allow our sin to destroy us utterly. We are not hopelessly depraved. We are wounded and we need to be healed. We are enslaved, but we are not hopelessly so. Augustine did not declare predestination. Augustine just made sure that we spoke of grace, for without grace we are nothing. And though God may be more gracious with some than with others, that grace is not exclusive grace.

And God's grace can be and is mediated by human work. When we preach, our preaching becomes a form of mediated grace. Even Christ in the flesh is a form of mediated grace (Christ didn't get revealed to all in his body, but his disciples were charged with the proclamation of Christ, and with Baptism). For Augustine it was the work of the church in baptism (which was a bit more influential in his time than it was in later periods of Chrisendom) that was a major work of mediation that is commanded of the church by Christ himself.

It was not until the church began to baptize people into the Roman Empire that baptism was really distorted and began to cease mediating grace. Rome was not the place of citizenship for those who are in Christ. Baptism was forced on people regardless of their faith; baptism was used to either convert enemies or as an excuse to kill them; practices like these revealed a type of baptism that was no longer grace-full at all, but had been emptied of its power because men used the practice for their own gain. As soon as we twist the grace of God for our own benefit we find that grace fails us (because we have transformed the grace of God into our work). God chose to mediate his grace through the flesh (most visibly in Christ), but we equated that grace with the flesh and forgot its source.

The church should remember baptism, because we need to remember very well that God has not mediated God's grace to us in an etherial "spiritual" way. God has given us grace in the body and blood of Christ (in Christ's very life, teachings, death, and resurrection). And the Spirit draws us back to this fleshly Christ (not in some gross transformation of the elements, but by forming us into Christ's very Body in this world). Baptism is about our being united to those who are in the Kingdom, and ought to be a time where such is witnessed by all who are in the gathering (the locality of the church should overshadow the catholicity in this for a time). People are not being united to the Catholic Church (Rome) in baptism; people are being welcomed into a local gathering (in as much as the local gathering is united to Christ through the witness of the scriptures and through the practices that Christ has given to us). The local ought to remain catholic, but baptism does not unite us to an invisible "Catholic" body. Baptism unites us to a fleshly gathering (the ekklesia) and in our union to that gathering unites us to the church catholic (so that we need not be baptized each time we visit a new gathering). Baptism is not about an invisible citizenship, it is about a visible membership to the Body of Christ.

If baptism becomes a mediation of God's grace, than predestination is absurd. God does not destine anyone for wrath (he desires for all to be saved). And the wrath that we receive is really our own actions coming back on us. We cannot say anything about those whom we have not reached the message of Christ (they are not in our scope). But with those to whom we are a direct witness of Christ, it is our responsibility to call them to baptism (to call them into our gathering) and to treat all with the love that Christ has called us to in that gathering with the hope that all will be saved from the wrath set aside for all who unite themselves to the sin of this age.

Peace,
Michael
 

Z Man

New member
Clete said:
No I wouldn't, I would ask them to establish such nonsense Biblically if they could, which they couldn't because the whole notion is self-contradictory given the message of the Bible and the nature of not only right and wrong but our whole existence.
Been there done that Clete. But it's a self-defeating purpose anyways, because you've already made up in your mind that you're in control, not God, no matter what evidence is brought before your eyes.
 

Z Man

New member
seekinganswers said:
This assumes that human nature is so depraved that it is beyond hope.
Correction:

We are depraved beyond the hope of saving ourselves. However, not beyond the hope of salvation from God.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Z Man said:
Been there done that Clete. But it's a self-defeating purpose anyways, because you've already made up in your mind that you're in control, not God, no matter what evidence is brought before your eyes.
Saying it doesn't make it so Z Man. Did you forget that this thread is still sitting here waiting to be read by anyone who is interested? You've not made a single point (NOT ONE SINGLE POINT) that hasn't been soundly refuted perhaps a dozen times in half a dozen different ways. The testimony that this thread provides proves that it is you who have made up your mind and will not recant no matter the evidence presented against your blasphemous position.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Z Man said:
So presenting an argument and quoting from Scriptures means I'm a JW now? I had no idea...

:sigh:

For the 1,000,000th time, I've never said that.

Your systematic use of proof texts is similar to a JW apologetic. A contextual, grammatical, cultural, historical, theological, literal hermeneutic would not allow proof texting to support a deductive theology.

You have essential truth; JWs do not. You are not a JW, but a child of God. I am suggesting your exegesis is questionable at times due to using isolated texts improperly.

It seems to me that you did conclude that God uses exhaustive, meticulous control, and that He is in control of everything, including evil. You may try to say that He does so without being responsible, but that does not compute. You have proof texted verses about God doing 'evil' to prove your point.
 

billygoat

How did I get such great kids??
LIFETIME MEMBER
Love cannot exist where it is not freely given.


sentientsynth said:
[


Why not?

Because love by it's very definition requires the ability to either love or not love. A man who kidnapped a woman and locked her in his house can never make her love him. That would be sick. In the same way, if God tried to "force" us to love Him, that would be sick, and God is not sick of course.

think about it. How could God "make" me love Him? He couldn't!!
 

Z Man

New member
Clete said:
Saying it doesn't make it so Z Man.
Ha! You should make that your signature, as many times as I have seen you say that. Maybe Godrulz will read it and take a hint...
Did you forget that this thread is still sitting here waiting to be read by anyone who is interested? You've not made a single point (NOT ONE SINGLE POINT) that hasn't been soundly refuted perhaps a dozen times in half a dozen different ways. The testimony that this thread provides proves that it is you who have made up your mind and will not recant no matter the evidence presented against your blasphemous position.
Saying it doesn't make it so Clete... ;)
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Z Man said:
Ha! You should make that your signature, as many times as I have seen you say that. Maybe Godrulz will read it and take a hint...
I have to say it almost constantly because relatively few people on this site understand what the word 'debate' means, including you. Godrulz very rarely substantiates his points either and has gotten his share of my criticism for it, but the difference between him and you is that he doesn't pretend like he's substantiated anything. He is content to simply express his agreement or disagreement and let that be basically it. You, on the other hand, pretend to have proven something that you know you haven't proven.

Saying it doesn't make it so Clete... ;)
You seemingly don't know how to read. I didn't simply make the claim and let it hang out there as though it is true because Clete Pfeiffer uttered it. I presented this thread as evidence to SUBSTANTIATE the claim. You literally don't know a substantive argument when you see one do you?

"Substantiate', that's a word you need to add to your vocabulary, it would help you pull yourself out of the black pit you're in intellectually.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

seekinganswers

New member
Z Man said:
Correction:

We are depraved beyond the hope of saving ourselves. However, not beyond the hope of salvation from God.

No, this assumes that our nature has become something else. You speak of sin as if it had ontology (as if it had created an antithesis to the Creation). Sin does not have ontology but is not a distortion of reality. Thus even the unrighteous are sustained in God, not as unrighteous people but as God's Creation. Those who have life are given that life from God for good, not for evil. God declares of life in the beginning that it is good, not bad. God blesses the Creation, he does not curse it.

We cannot save ourselves, but that does not mean that God's grace is not already made available to all. Those who have life have grace from God, and in this much they have hope of salvation. All who live have hope.

Adam was not special in this way. The life of humanity from the beginning was a gift from God with a calling for humanity to be the image of God on the earth. That image was lost (as we decided to embrace an image of our own making). The image we embraced was no image at all, for we did not reflect anyone (for God had freely given of Godself for the good of the Creation; God was the servant ruler of the Creaiton). Humans reflected themselves as gods who ruled the Creation by manipulation and force. They took the Creation and tried to make it their own (rather than caring for it as they had been charged, understanding the Creation as God's and not their's). They took on an image that was no image at all (it was lacking in every way).

So Christ must come to reveal that image to us once again, and to call us to follow him in that image. Those who receive Christ will be saved. And what that takes is baptism (i.e. a repentance or turning from the false image of sin and a turning to the true of God in Christ). Baptism requires the one who enters into it to die to the world and to be raised (not raise themselves) in Christ. It is not something that can be forced on anyone. It is a gift to which we are called first, but one that we must receive freely (in faithfulness; whether we are able to be faithful or whether someone must stand for us [if we cannot speak for ourselves] to lead us in faithfulness to Christ).

God saves humanity by uniting humanity to Godself in Christ, so that the humans who in their union to Adam were destined for death, might in Christ be united to eternal life. The two Adams remain. The Dragon and the Lamb are at odds with one another in this age. And the Dragon has really deceived humanity in following him. But the lamb has been revealed to us today, and we have hope for the future.

Depravity is in Adam (the image of humanity in humanity's own self); life is in Christ (the image of humanity after God). And this is all detailed in Romans 5, yet Paul moves to 6 declaring that it is in baptism (not election) that we have put to death the old image and have been renewed in Christ. It is the grace-filled activity of humans in the church (in the ekklesia, where election lies) that salvation for the world is possible. Salvation is not guaranteed for the elect (even the churches whose lampstand is with Christ in the heavens can fail, though they are God's elect, just as Israel has gone astray in their election as well). Election is not about us, it is about God's faithfulness to all of humanity to the end. God will produce salvation for the world through God's elect, not simply for the sake of the elect. Election is about God's faithfulness to the end.

If you try to equate election to salvation you are in error, for Paul will speak of election for Israel in such a way as to make such an equation absurd. Election is not about salvation or damnation; election is about God's faithfulness to all the Creaiton. Election is about the fact that God will save the world (it is not about who God will save in particular). Israel is God's elect, and yet not all who are elect in Israel will be saved.

Peace,
Michael
 
Top