ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

G. I. T. and Knight--You say libel is a false written report against someone rather than someone, and so Clete commited no libel.

What about his implication that I was guilty of malicious intent to harm him and his family. He demanded that I apologize for doing so. THAT is a public --forum wide--and false charge against me.

state the post where this was done please.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

G. I. T.--post 621, page 42

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

G. I. T. and Knight--You say libel is a false written report against someone rather than something, and so Clete commited no libel.

What about his implication that I was guilty of malicious intent to harm him and his family. He demanded that I apologize for doing so. THAT is a public --forum wide--and false charge against me.

Rolf...
There are some good debates going on here! And frankly your just being too strange to add anything to the debate and to be honest I think you are embarrassing the side you are supossed to be debating for.

Maybe you could try to refocus your efforts?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete--in post 651, you imply that I have lost control of my mind. All that you see of my mind control is the words which I post. So, if there is any basis to your RUDE accusation, be specific. Show the evidence.

Again, you OVers and Arminians frequently make insulting charges such as that against others. Then you say WE are rude.

I challenge any of you to locate one post of mine in which I have acted with such rudeness to someone else; but, as I said before, I would rather be a victim of such rudeness than engage it in myself against others.

 

[Turbo]

What Arminians?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Knight--your post #663--thanks for the encouragement. there ARE better things to do--even if the suggestion IS from an OVer; and this is not the first time you have posted something I agree with.

Come to think of it, sometime you seem a bit more human than the others.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Turbo--those who charge Calvinists with being rude.

 

[MST3K]

Re: Re: AHHHHH calvinism makes me furious!!!

Re: Re: AHHHHH calvinism makes me furious!!!

Originally posted by karstkid

Life outside of the Garden of Eden during Adam and Eve's time there included sickness and death. Death came into the world long before Adam and Eve.

Death came into the world long before Adam, huh? Where are you getting that from? Death did not exist before Adam. To say such a thing is to take away from Christ's ministry:

Romans 5:12 and 14
Therefore, just as through one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men...Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him (Jesus)who was to come.

I Cor 15:20-22
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man (notice the small "m" = ADAM) came death, by Man (notice capital "M" = Jesus) also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man - You quoted Clete saying

• You believe that what Hitler did (for an extreme example) wasn't done because Hitler chose to do it but because Hitler was chosen (predestined) to do it.

and then you said

• Wrong. I believe both, that God chose Hitler and Hitler chose to do what he did.

and your already undone. Here are the two options.

1. Hitler chose without God predestinating/ordaining/decreeing his choices
   
2. God predestinated/ordained/decreed his choices

It's an either or, you can not have both these being true, that is a violation of the law on non-contradiction. I realize that you believe both are true, people believe many strange and contradictory things.

It's not 'strange', 'contridictory', or 'illogical' to understand the Biblical truth that God ordains everything, yet cannot be held accountable for sinning. We take the responsibility for committing the sin, not God.

Willing that sin exist in this world is not sinning. God does not commit sin by willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his 'positive agency.'

Jonathan Edwards, the renown 1730's 'Great Awakening' preacher, once said that God is "the permitter . . . of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted . . . will most certainly and infallibly follow."

Saying that God wills that what He hates comes to pass is not contridictory or illogical; it's totally Scriptural. It is a fundamental truth that helps explain some perplexing things in the Bible, namely, that God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people."). He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

God has ordained everything, including sin, yet is not guilty of sinning Himself. The Scriptures teach us this. It's not contridictory. You may not understand it, but it doesn't mean that it's suddenly 'illogical' and wrong. Who can understand the Trinity? Just because it may seem illogical to us doesn't mean it cannot be; it is God's TRUTH. Nothing is impossible with Him.

Your comments about Romans 9:18-20 are an affront to logic and reason itself. None of your translations even tried to say what your one strange commentary says about "God ordaining and decreeing sin". Plus, your response was incongruent to what Clete said. He did not ask for a different translation, he said your supposed translation was terribly wrong.

What comments? I merely quoted Scripture! How can that be an 'affront to logic and reason itself'?

I posted that verse because it is the exact samething that Clete and others are objecting to. I say God decrees everything, including evil, and then you guys say that that must mean God is guilty of unjustice and sin. You object, stating that if God's will is always carried out, why does He still find fault with us? That's exactly what Romans 9:18-20 deals with; your objection. The same exact objection that was raised in v.19.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

It's not 'strange', 'contridictory', or 'illogical' to understand the Biblical truth that God ordains everything, yet cannot be held accountable for sinning. We take the responsibility for committing the sin, not God.

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

you do understand what a contradiction IS right Z Man?

you do understand what it means when something is illogical right Z Man?

you do understand what justice is right Z Man?

God WILL NOT contradict himself. God is not illogical. and God is JUST.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

Your response to me seems very convoluted and contradictory to me.

Didn't mean it that way...

However, I know from past experience with you that you are not as irrational as your post would seem to suggest.
So, in order to give you the benefit of the doubt I'm going to assume that we are somehow talking past one another by saying two different things by using the same words.

:think:

Either that or you just don't want to face the context of my post...

The only way I can think of to clear up this muddy water is to define terms and come to a common understanding of what certain things mean when we say them. To that end, I would like for you to answer a couple of questions and then I will in turn answer them myself and then we can perhaps find common linguistic ground upon which to proceed with our discussion.

Sounds fair. Although I really think you are swerving off track a bit unneccissarily. But if it will truly help you understand better, I am all for it. :thumb:

When you say God is sovereign, what does that mean exactly?

That nothing happens apart from His control. In the words of Charles Spurgeon:

I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes – that every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit, as well as the sun in the heavens – that the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses. The creeping of an aphid over the rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence – the fall of . . . leaves from a poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche.

What is justice?

Justice

• The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.

• The rendering to every one his due or right; just treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives.

What does it mean for God to have predestined something?

Well, predestine means "to foreordain or elect by divine will or decree". Thus, for God to have predestined something means that He foreordained/elected by His divine will/decree that specific 'something'.

What does it mean to have a free will?

It means to have a will, or an ability to choose or decide upon a course of action, without no limitation or restriction from any outside 'force'. To do whatever one pleases.

Are the doctrines of predestination (not foreknowledge) and free will mutually exclusive and why?

Please forgive me, but I don't know what you mean by 'mutually exclusive'. I do not wish to assume your understanding of it, only to say something wrong and totally off subject or whatever...

I may have a few more depending on how this progresses but that's enough for now. Remember, I'm asking what YOU think these things mean not what you think I mean by them.
Also, I don't intend at all to debate you about what these things mean, I'll accept whatever definition you want as your understanding of these terms, if mine is dramatically different then perhaps we'll need to use modified terms to differentiate between the two. The point is that all I'm looking for is to establish a common vernacular so that we can stop running around in circles.

Whatever helps you my friend. :thumb:

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

you do understand what a contradiction IS right Z Man?

you do understand what it means when something is illogical right Z Man?

you do understand what justice is right Z Man?

God WILL NOT contradict himself. God is not illogical. and God is JUST.

I know God does not contridict Himself. I know He is not illogical. And I know that He is just. My beliefs affirm that, and at the same time, that's exactly why I understand the following verses that I would love to see you try and explain how they do not contridict your view of God:

God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people."). He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26).

 

[1Way]

Rolf - God Is Truth - Clete - And all interested parties
I admit that it is not interesting reading when so much harsh personal strife is going on, so I posted my observations in another thread, but, I feel that Rolf's recent posts deserve some critical review. So, if you want to see a highlighted recap, check out this post exposing Rolfs bizarre posts.

Click here for that thread.

Please respond over in that thread to respect the debate and topic here. Thanks.

 

[1Way]

Z Man - It is sad whenever I find this, but, you plainly lie. First you quoted me saying

Your comments about Romans 9:18-20 are an affront to logic and reason itself. None of your translations even tried to say what your one strange commentary says about "God ordaining and decreeing sin". Plus, your response was incongruent to what Clete said. He did not ask for a different translation, he said your supposed translation was terribly wrong.

And so your respond saying.

What comments? I merely quoted Scripture! How can that be an 'affront to logic and reason itself'?

and yet the truth of the matter is that this is what actually happened.

originally posted by Clete
This is simply the worst translation of this text I have ever seen. It is the most blatant example of the translators reading the theology into the text that I have ever seen. Are you sure that the Bible you're getting this from isn't a paraphrase? Look it up yourself in a lexicon or in Strong's or something. This is simply a near complete mistranslation of the Greek.

What translation do you want? They all say the same thing;

God has mercy and hardens whoever He wishes. The objection rises; "How can God hold us accountable if He ordained it to happen in the first place? If He decreed my sin, than how can I be guilty of it?" Who in the world do you think you are? How can you question God like that? You are nothing but a man!


Romans 9:18-20 (NAS)
So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

Romans 9:18-20 (NKJV)
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?

Romans 9:18-20 (NRS)
So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses. You will say to me then, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God?

Romans 9:18-20 (GNT)
So then, God has mercy on anyone he wishes, and he makes stubborn anyone he wishes. But one of you will say to me, "If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? Who can resist God's will?" But who are you, my friend, to talk back to God?

Romans 9:18-20 (The Message)
All we're saying is that God has the first word, initiating the action in which we play our part for good or ill. Are you going to object, "So how can God blame us for anything since he's in charge of everything? If the big decisions are already made, what say do we have in it?" Who in the world do you think you are to second-guess God? Do you for one moment suppose any of us knows enough to call God into question?



Pick your favorite. It still means the same thing...

Clete was not asking for more translations, he was charging your bogus falsification of scripture as being a terrible "supposed" translation. Your response to Clete was more like a lie than dealing uprightly with him.

Just as Clete noted, it is not a translation, if anything, it's more like a gross paraphrase or bad commentary.

Plainly, you did not just quote scripture, you offered a perversion of it and then you also basically lied and said that your perversion was congruent with the other translations you offered.

Like I said before in protest to your comment, they don't even try to say what your example says (the red underlined part). It is bad to lie just to try to make a point. And it is even worse to pervert and falsify the scriptures. BTW, what so called translation are you referencing, the one you did not identify.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Knight, Clete--Since you are so bold as to charge me with being irrational, be bold enough also to be specific about you charge. WHEREIN is anything I have posted irrational. You both made the charge. Now we can all wait to see if you can put some substance behind them.

As for the two of you, and G.I.T. also, who was rude enough to question my regewnerate nature, I will say this---I weould much rather that someone show such rudeness to me (including your insulting smilie, Knight, than that I should be the one who shows such rudeness to others.

Again, you have charged irrationality--be specific. Point out the evidence of any irrationality. Happy hunting!

I would not have responded to this at all if not for the effort 1Way put into making it easy without further disruption on this thread.

The proof is HERE

Any further response should be made on the other thread.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man - It is sad whenever I find this, but, you plainly lie. Clete was not asking for more translations, he was charging your bogus falsification of scripture as being a terrible "supposed" translation. Your response to Clete was more like a lie than dealing uprightly with him.

How can you charge me with lying when I believe I am speaking truth? You can't. You could only charge me of lying if I was to agree with Clete.

Just as Clete noted, it is not a translation, if anything, it's more like a gross paraphrase or bad commentary.

Plainly, you did not just quote scripture, you offered a perversion of it and then you also basically lied and said that your perversion was congruent with the other translations you offered.

Like I said before in protest to your comment, they don't even try to say what your example says (the red underlined part). It is bad to lie just to try to make a point. And it is even worse to pervert and falsify the scriptures. BTW, what so called translation are you referencing, the one you did not identify.

The reference I did not identify was a summary of all the ones I did identify.

I don't understand, and maybe you can clarify me on this one, but if Romans 9:18-20 does not say what it says, what does it say? How do you read it to say? Do no translations fit into your 'view'? Do you need to make an OV translation of the Word of God? It would appear so, in order to support your false doctrines...

How else can you interpret Romans 9:18-20, which so clearly states that it is foolish for man to object that we have no responsibility if God is sovereign?

"How can He still find fault, for who has resisted His will?"

That's exactly the 'whine' that comes from OV'ers all the time!

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

I know God does not contridict Himself. I know He is not illogical. And I know that He is just. My beliefs affirm that

no, your beliefs make God out to be unjust, contradictory, arbitrary, selfish, and illogical.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

How can you charge me with lying when I believe I am speaking truth? You can't. You could only charge me of lying if I was to agree with Clete.

The reference I did not identify was a summary of all the ones I did identify.

I don't understand, and maybe you can clarify me on this one, but if Romans 9:18-20 does not say what it says, what does it say? How do you read it to say? Do no translations fit into your 'view'? Do you need to make an OV translation of the Word of God? It would appear so, in order to support your false doctrines...

How else can you interpret Romans 9:18-20, which so clearly states that it is foolish for man to object that we have no responsibility if God is sovereign?

"How can He still find fault, for who has resisted His will?"

That's exactly the 'whine' that comes from OV'ers all the time!

he is talking about any man of Israel who would arrogantly talk back to God and question his sovereign right to reject Israel due to unbelief.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

no, your beliefs make God out to be unjust, contradictory, arbitrary, selfish, and illogical.

GIT,

Your just arguing for arguing sakes. Your not doing a good job of taking into context anything I say. The best you can do is dish out slander against what I believe.

If I do not believe that God is unjust, contradictory, arbitrary, etc., what makes you think my beliefs state just that? I don't understand. We both agree God is not unjust. Why do you keep saying that my beliefs says He is? What about my beliefs make God unjust?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

he is talking about any man of Israel who would arrogantly talk back to God and question his sovereign right to reject Israel due to unbelief.

Tell me, what does this mean,

"Why does He still find fault, for who has resisted His will?"