Uh... lets not lose sight of the obvious meaning of words.
It will only cloud the issue for no good reason.
ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
It will only cloud the issue for no good reason.
Re: Re: AHHHHH calvinism makes me furious!!!
Re: Re: AHHHHH calvinism makes me furious!!!
Re: Re: AHHHHH calvinism makes me furious!!!
Excellent post. Great points and welcome to TOL! :up:Originally posted by MST3K
Knight,
I agree with you about Calvinism. I cannot tell you how many times I have lost it over the terrible things people attribute to God.
My husband and I are friends with a Christian couple. The woman of this couple ended up having an affair and their marriage almost ended. She ended the affair and went back to her husband and they are now trying to repair the devastation of her horrible choice to sin.
This couple happens to be Calvinist. When my husband asked them if this affair was God's will, they said, "Yes. It was." Can you believe that? According to Calvinism, it was God's choice for her to commit adultery. She has no responsibility for her sin because it was all God's will in the first place.
So let's think this through with some logic. God gives us a command: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Why does He give us such a command? Because sin separates us from God and sin hurts people. God tells us not to sin so we won't be separated from Him. Simple. However, Calvinism says, God says DO NOT DO THIS, and then creates a scenario for someone to commit the very thing He said DO NOT DO. God did this so the person who committed adultery and was separated from God would come back to Him (also planned by Him) and would be closer to God because of the sin in the first place. It was all part of His plan.
WHAAAAAAAAAAA?!
I will never understand Calvinism. It makes me sick! *YUCK!*
:BRAVO:
God_Is_Truth
New member
ok, i think i can live with that. when it comes to salvation, we are all in need because we have all sinned. but a person may be "innocent" if they are getting something they do not deserve. like you pointed out, murder can only exist if a person is innocent of their blood being shed.
so on the one hand, nobody is innocent before God. but on the other hand, people can be innocent in various other situations while here on earth.
i think we are in agreement now
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
GIT - LOL, some rough edges may apply.
We need to take into account each case seperately.
Every example I offered was consistent in the eyes of God. Salvation is just one (although very important) relationship. Everyone needs to get saved. But just as universally true, everyone is innocent until they are morally guilty, such that we all have a right to life because we are innocent from capitol offense, that is, until we commit a capitol crime, we have a God given stamp of innocence that establishes our right to life, through our innocence.
The relationship is a right to life. We all have it until we violate a capitol offense. That is how God sees it concerning our right to life. And the same righteousness and morality naturally applies to any moral situation. God's morality is just as absolute and universal for the sake of salvation as it is for any other moral concern, one absolute standard.
We need to take into account each case seperately.
Every example I offered was consistent in the eyes of God. Salvation is just one (although very important) relationship. Everyone needs to get saved. But just as universally true, everyone is innocent until they are morally guilty, such that we all have a right to life because we are innocent from capitol offense, that is, until we commit a capitol crime, we have a God given stamp of innocence that establishes our right to life, through our innocence.
The relationship is a right to life. We all have it until we violate a capitol offense. That is how God sees it concerning our right to life. And the same righteousness and morality naturally applies to any moral situation. God's morality is just as absolute and universal for the sake of salvation as it is for any other moral concern, one absolute standard.
To Sozo re: Ro 5:18
To Sozo re: Ro 5:18
Hi Sozo,
Thanks for your question. I believe I've answered this before, but I'll do it again here, since it is most relevant to the topic.
Sozo quotes 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."
Furthermore, the word "condemned" is misleading. It should rather be translated "punishment." The word katakrima only occurs in verses 16,18 and Romans 8:1 in the Greek scriptures. It also occurs in the LXX in Sir. 43:10 and there are several instances of the word in the papyri. Based on its usage, the word denotes a punishment declared as a consequence of the verdict given in krima (judgment). In the context of Ro 5, it refers to the punishment declared as a consequence of the verdict rendered in judgment (krima) of Adam's sin in Gen 3:17-19:
So Sozo is right. It is the same all. All-without-distinction experience the consequences of one man's sin. The same all-without-distinction experience the declaration-as-righteous through one Man's righteousness.
Please let me know if anything is unclear.
Jim
To Sozo re: Ro 5:18
Hi Sozo,
Thanks for your question. I believe I've answered this before, but I'll do it again here, since it is most relevant to the topic.
Sozo quotes 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."
I agree with you. Covenantal Calvinists do not have an adequate answer for this. This is further demonstration of the consistency of the Mid-Acts view with regard to all scripture. If Open Theists would dare to be consistent Mid-Acts adherents, the Open View components of their theology would crumble.
First of all, it's important to note that the word "all," especially in the Pauline epistles, does not denote "all without exception," but usually means "all without distinction." It is important for Mid-Acts proponents to recognize this and to make application of this fact in developing a proper biblical theology. "All without distinction" is an idea of particular relevance to a group of God's elect that are neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, male nor female before God; that is, they are a group without distinctions. No ethnic, class or gender distinction within Christ's Body and before the Father. So Ro 5:18 is not referring to all men without exception, but rather to the members of the Body of Christ only.
Furthermore, the word "condemned" is misleading. It should rather be translated "punishment." The word katakrima only occurs in verses 16,18 and Romans 8:1 in the Greek scriptures. It also occurs in the LXX in Sir. 43:10 and there are several instances of the word in the papyri. Based on its usage, the word denotes a punishment declared as a consequence of the verdict given in krima (judgment). In the context of Ro 5, it refers to the punishment declared as a consequence of the verdict rendered in judgment (krima) of Adam's sin in Gen 3:17-19:
Thus, every member of the Body of Christ, although elect from the before the foundation of the world, is subject to the warp and woof, ebb and flow, variances and vicissitudes of living in a cursed and fallen world. We must work hard, by the sweat of our brows, for our livelihood. We must endure the hardships of a thorn- and thistle-riddled ground. And we must die (sometimes of cancer) and return to the dust whence we came. So even in this manner (kai houtOs) the death (ho thanatos) passed on to all-[men]-without-distinction (Ro 5:12). The whole chapter is written by Paul to explain in theological terms the current state of the members of the Body of Christ. He answers such questions as, "How is it, if the Body of Christ is pre-chosen, before the foundation of the world, that we have individual sin and suffer the trials of life?" Here is the answer. Because of one man's trangression (Adam), the consequence of that action (the punishment) has passed to the members of the Body of Christ.
So Sozo is right. It is the same all. All-without-distinction experience the consequences of one man's sin. The same all-without-distinction experience the declaration-as-righteous through one Man's righteousness.
I conclude that all men referred to in the verse have life. Not all without exception, but all without distinction.
Please let me know if anything is unclear.
Jim
To Big Finn ...
To Big Finn ...
To Big Finn re: Post #223
To Big Finn ...
To Big Finn re: Post #223
That's especially true for the Body of Christ, who call the Father "Abba, Father," a term only the Son Himself ever used to address the Father prior to the inception of the Body of Christ.
That's a very western conception and is not altogether accurate, Big Finn. If you were to find yourself under the parentage of a middle eastern family of Jesus's time, you would not have such a sentimental view. Middle eastern patriarchs wielded tremendous authority in their households. They held the prerogative of life and death over their children. They could kill their children with impunity if they so chose (Abraham would not have been charged with a crime for killing Isaac. Jephthah was not charged with a crime of sacrificing his daughter. In fact, his faith was nonetheless commended in Hebrews 11:32). Fathers would choose the spouses for their daughters. They also blessed their families, functioning as patriarchal priests over them. When a father blessed or cursed his children, they regarded him with fear and awe, knowing the power he held over them. This doesn't take away from his tenderness and affection toward his children, but neither does the tenderness and affection warrant the disregard of his awesome and fearsome power over them. The father is to be both loved and feared. The biblical picture is perfect. The western distortion of it is horribly flawed and, frankly, effeminate.
A father could kill his son or daughter if he wanted. A loving father could rule with nitpicking domination if he so chose. You statement is misguided.
I have no motivation to give "biblical support" for a view that I do not hold. You need to stop misrepresenting your opponents' views.
Why would I want to do that? Do you recognize that the father in the Luke 15 could have killed the elder son with impunity just for the ill-placed anger and disrespect? Bible students should recognize what a risky thing it was for the elder son to express his anger toward his father, knowing that the father had the power of life and death over him.
Z Man
New member
Knight,
Quit being a wimp. Your wrong, and I've proven it. Be a man and admit your mistakes. The reason you began this thread is because you felt that it was wrong for a woman to claim that God gave her the disease of cancer. You said that diseases are not "given"; that they just come from no where. However, Scripture plainly tells us that God does indeed inflict diseases and other afflictions upon people, whether "bad" or "good". My point was not to prove that God torments innocent people, but rather, that He does in fact give people diseases, as you have publically stated does not happen. You have flat out disagreed with Scripture, and I want the public to know that the owner of TOL, a site where TRUTH is suppose to be debated, is run by a guy who opposes TRUTH! And what's worse is that you keep running from the obvious; you will not be a man and face your mistakes and admit them. You should be ashame of yourself...
Not only that, you totally ignored the context of my post here. Look, I'm not trying to "win", or prove to everyone that I'm right; I just want you to realize that you are opposing Scriptures, and avoiding TRUTH! That's dangerous to those who may be close to you and look up to you. If you go around telling others a bunch of lies about how God does not give people diseases, then you will have to answer for that one day. In addition, you need to set the example, since you do own "TruthSmackdown.com"....
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Z Man - According to your last post to knight and Big Finn. Your view is not simply that sometimes God inflicts pain and disease upon people, your view is that all things work together for good, no matter what, all things are from the providential purpose and will of God.
While it is good to honor and respect the authority and nature of God, it is evil and wrong to attribute evil to the very essence and source of goodness.
Not all things happen by the will or purpose of God. The next verse shows that God views chance events, that is, an event that is not caused by a specific purpose or design, accurately reflect the truth in reality.
But by the Calvinistic view, all things happen according to God's plan, so these examples serve well to dismiss that view. Also, not only do disasters and calamity not always happen at the hand of God, so also man does not always follow the will of God either.
While it is good to honor and respect the authority and nature of God, it is evil and wrong to attribute evil to the very essence and source of goodness.
Not all things happen by the will or purpose of God. The next verse shows that God views chance events, that is, an event that is not caused by a specific purpose or design, accurately reflect the truth in reality.
- Lu 10:31 "Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
- Lu 13:1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 "Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
But by the Calvinistic view, all things happen according to God's plan, so these examples serve well to dismiss that view. Also, not only do disasters and calamity not always happen at the hand of God, so also man does not always follow the will of God either.
- Lu 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.
Uh... the only thing you have proven is your theology is embarrassing.
This thread is a perfect example of how flawed your arguments are!
Even fellow Calvinists reject your theology of God as evil mastermind.
Based on your theology Satan is not God's adversary but instead Satan is God's hitman, His right hand man! Heck... according to you Z Man Satan is not any different than Peter or the apostle Paul, after all... according to you they were all faithfully following God's will.
So Z Man... is Satan good? Or is Satan bad?
Moreover..... in Z Man theology is there even such a thing as "bad"?
God says...
Z Man can you objectively prove that you are not calling evil "good" when you state that God is the cancer giver? Or when you preach that it is God that torments innocent people?
Z Man I have two questions for you.....
1. Z Man is there such a thing as evil?
And if so how do you define it?
2. Has any evil or bad thing ever happened in the history of creation that was not directly orchestrated by God?
And if so, can you give me an example?
Re: Job did it.
Re: Job did it.
Re: Job did it.
Jim your quick to correct misrepresentations of Calvinism.... your also quick to misrepresent Open Theism. :nono:
To Yorzhik ...
To Yorzhik ...
Hi Yorzhik,
Jim previously wrote: 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!).
Jim wrote: 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?
To Yorzhik ...
Hi Yorzhik,
Jim previously wrote: 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!).
Why should He? And where did He say He would leave them the way He said He would? If He can give further salvation opportunities to scores of unsaved people by preventing the mass carnage of 9/11, wouldn't it be worth the scattering of a few atoms to do so? Please answer this, Yorzhik, because it sounds like you're dodging the question with arbitrary stipulations.
Jim wrote: 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?
Please convince me of the value of thousands of people plunging into hell at the hands of the 9/11 terrorists in the eyes of a God who wants to save as many people as possible.
Are those choices free? Or are they constrained by your preferences and myriad other factors outside of your control? If they are free, then you could choose something you do not want. But you can't.
God doesn't have to "predict." He knows because He has decreed, in meticulous detail, every event, every electron orbit, every hide and hair of existence. If He didn't, then He could not make a single prophecy come true with any certainty.
Is that what "they" said? Who do you think was talking? The Father? The Son? The Holy Spirit? Was it said audibly, with vocal cords and molecular vibration? Did the other members of the Godhead hear Him say this? Was it heard with their ears, the sound waves vibrating the divine eardrum? What is the Hebrew word for "maybe", Yorzhik?
Do you recognize the importance of due process in scripture? How about anthropopathisms? Do you see any value in these concepts at all? When you and other Open Theists take the linguistic figures of scripture and literalize them, you rob the scriptures of their force and richness. It's really tragic. The funny thing is, God saw fit to use them so frequently that you guys had plenty of fodder with which to build an entire irrational theology.
He is 100% sure because He decreed every case without exception. If there were anything He did not decree, He would not -- could not -- coherently and honestly ask you to trust Him.
Do you mean what is God currently doing?
God works with those that love Him. (Romans 8:28)
He comforts, gives wisdom. He forgives, He shows mercy and He loves etc. The Holy Spirit is actively working in all of the lives of those that lean on Him.
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.
He also condemns, judges and punishes those that have rejected Him.
Therefore according to open theism God is working through His body via the Holy Spirit in a trillion different ways every day!
And what say ye Jim?
What is God currently doing through the eyes of the closed view?
Misrepresentation ...
Misrepresentation ...
Note about misrepresentation: I must admit, Knight, that after reading four books and hundreds of posts and articles on Open Theism, there doesn't seem to be a consistent or coherent explanation of how two things in particular make any sense in the Open View: Prayer and trust. I've debated Greg Boyd on it at length, and others too numerous to enumerate. If Open Theism had been around for centuries, maybe these answers would be more systematized and readily available and I could read them for myself. Unfortunately, the Open View has only a short history and not a very well-developed theological tradition.
I hasten to say that I don't put any stock whatsoever in theological tradition, but certainly there is NO excuse for misrepresenting a view, right or wrong, that has been around for as long as Calvinism has.
I say that to this this: Please explain how I've misrepresented the Open View on prayer and trust and I will happily and eagerly recant my claim.
Sincererly,
Jim
Misrepresentation ...
Note about misrepresentation: I must admit, Knight, that after reading four books and hundreds of posts and articles on Open Theism, there doesn't seem to be a consistent or coherent explanation of how two things in particular make any sense in the Open View: Prayer and trust. I've debated Greg Boyd on it at length, and others too numerous to enumerate. If Open Theism had been around for centuries, maybe these answers would be more systematized and readily available and I could read them for myself. Unfortunately, the Open View has only a short history and not a very well-developed theological tradition.
I hasten to say that I don't put any stock whatsoever in theological tradition, but certainly there is NO excuse for misrepresenting a view, right or wrong, that has been around for as long as Calvinism has.
I say that to this this: Please explain how I've misrepresented the Open View on prayer and trust and I will happily and eagerly recant my claim.
Sincererly,
Jim
Forgive me for answering for 1Way but I gotta!
Who espouses that man always follows God's will????
Do you really need to ask? Have you been reading this thread?
Uhh... Z Man, JoBeth, Swordsman and just about every other Calvinist that has ever posted on TOL. And when it gets right down to it you do as well Jim!