God_Is_Truth
New member
that sounds like christian science to me and i would agree, that's pretty twisted :down:
ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
that sounds like christian science to me and i would agree, that's pretty twisted :down:
Infamous Plug
New member
Oh the stories I've heard about it was quite something .
There was an older lady who was catholic and she suddenly converted to this bunch and her son-in-law went in and it gave him the heebie jeebies.
They were rolling around on the floor in a trance"thinking they were talking in tounges" and the the people when the collection plate rolled around they emptied thier pockets like 100,200 dollars or more, like it was a drug addiction or something , i mean hell give me 200 dollars and I'll teach them something ,I'll give them a Bible ,a bucket of KFC chicken,and a bucket full of coffee,and say" Here Read!! "
LightSon
New member
Interesting.
You eschew celebrating Christ's incarnation, but are willing to herald the B52s, pop preachers of "The Love Shack".
Are there any other inconsistencies in your world view that you would like to divulge?
The double-minded are unstable in all their ways, or so I've been told. Perhaps that rule only applies to a Hebrew audience.
Now I don't know if you are double-minded, but embracing contemporary rock music sends me mixed messages. Just thought I'd give you an opportunity to elaborate.
My worldview is biblical, LightSon. There's nothing unbiblical about enjoying music or clever lyrics. In fact, it is quite biblical to do so. It is terribly UNbiblical to celebrate Christ's incarnation, resurrection, assumption, etc.
How so?
Your rejection of contemporary rock music sends me a very clear message. You're a legalist. You and the pharisees would probably get along swimmingly.
"Rock and Roll ain't noise pollution."
-- AC/DC
If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere then one would expect everything to come out of God, would they not? Thus, it would be rational to assume that God would be the originator of cancer. Discussing whether God would actually have a hand in giving somebody cancer is debateable, based on your understanding of God as presented in the Bible. I believe that God is the ultimate creator of everything, thus everything comes out of him. That might mean that God actively gives people good or bad, or it might mean that God watches the world and lets things randomly happen. It's really something only God knows about. I think God leaves these types of questions to us in order for us to continue to explore his mystery!!
LightSon
New member
Before we get into music specifics, I'd like to know a little more about your lifestyle.
Do you use pornography?
Do you use recreational drugs?
Let's extrapolate from your arguments, "There's nothing unbiblical about enjoying music or clever lyrics,",.... or naked women or smoking crack. To argue otherwise is legalistic.
AC/DC? Highway to hell, James? Yes, I've been there and done that, so I have some knowledge from which to speak. Are you going to look me in the eye and defend AC/DC, Satan's frontlline preachers? Is this truly worthy of Phil 4:8? If you are in their camp, then please don't take the name of Christ on your lips- you will soil it.
This sensual position on godless music vitiates anything worthy in your world view.
Is there anything that Christ wants to save us from? Or does becomming a Christian just mean we now have the liberty do as we please and not call it sin. Perhaps you are in the "Christians never sin" camp.
In your view then there is no need to be separate from the world. No need to behave according to any Biblical principles, and should anybody, heralding God's word, call us to a higher standard, they must be dismissed as legalistic pharasees.
Tell me this. When God calls us to be holy, just what does that mean in practical terms? Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments. Was he serious? That would make Jesus a legalist in your view. I've seen more consistent positions from you James.
Now that I think about it, your position on religious celebrations smacks of more legalism than anything else under discussion.
Please give me your definition of legalism, because once you win me to your side, I'm gonna get some grass and toke up.
"light up and be happy;
join us in this celebration...." (can't remember who sang that. Maybe Styx).
Before we get into behavioral specifics, I'd like to know a little more about your view of morality. Consider the following:
Ge 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Was the tree good, pleasant and desirable or not? And were those qualities inherently evil or not?
What is it about naked women or smoking crack that appeals to a person?
No, the quoted song comes from "Back in Black," not "Highway to Hell." Please try to keep your devil music straight.
Satan's frontline preachers? Good grief! They're an old gaggle of Aussie brawlers who don't give a rip about religion or Satan or anything like that. No wonder evangelicals are looked at as a bunch of hyper-paranoid freaks. Do you have any scripture or other documentation to support your claim that AC/DC are "Satan's frontline preachers"? I suppose you think the Anti-Christ is going to be someone like Marilyn Manson or Ozzy Osbourne.
Here's my view of Satan's "frontline preachers":
2Co 11: 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
This describes people like you, LightSon (not you, necessarily, but people like you), who go around scrutizing other people's behavior, false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ, posing as ministers of righteousness (read: Legalism).
You have a very awful view of Christ's name. Christ not so delicate and dainty that He has to be protected from the corruptions of the world. If you were alive when Jesus walked the earth, you probably would have been among the Sanhedrin, condemning Him for touching the foul, dirty, common people.
You're a legalist, LightSon. There's nothing anti-scriptural or anti-Christian about enjoying life with the senses. Whether it's food, music, drama, photography, literature, sports, the outdoors, beer, poetry, barbequing, hiking, cigars, bungie jumping, etc.
1Ti 6:17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
Yes, false teaching and legalism such as you're espousing here.
It's clear to me that you don't know what you're talking about, which is typical among legalists. Paul said explicitly that our concern is not so much the fornicators, covetous, extortioners or idolaters of this world,
1Co 5:9 "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world."
He saw the ridiculousness of what you're suggesting, LightSon. Paul's sternest warning was not about the fallen men of this world, but about the fornicators, extortioners, covetous, and idolaters who were in the church.
1Co 5:11 "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."
Those are the ones to beware of and the assembly is to shun them.
1Co 5:13 "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."
Not in my view, in Paul's view.
It's not a higher standard. It's legalism. There is no higher standard than what God prescribes. When you go beyond that, it's not higher, but self-righteous pharisaical legalism.
It means to function in the world according to the purpose for which God has set you apart (holy means to "set apart for a purpose"). In my job, among my unsaved friends, in my church, on the city street, wherever I find myself, I am to function in accordance with that purpose ... "[to] do all things without murmurings and disputings: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life; ..."
It is clear to me that you don't know what legalism is.
Legalism is (a) making up your own rules in an effort to create a self-righteous "higher standard" that goes beyond scripture and corrupts the teachings and prescriptions of God, and (b) misapplying or twisting the teaching and prescriptions of God in order to appear to be more righteous than others. Look at Jesus' condemnation fo the scribes, pharisees, et al and the picture is clear.
Mt 15:2 [Pharisees:] Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.3 But he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mr 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. ... 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Contrast the self-righteous traditions of the Pharisees to the righteous traditions taught by Paul and his apostles:
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Paul goes on to warn the Thessalonians to withdraw themselves from so-called "brothers" who disobey Paul's tradition. Again, Paul's concern isn't "Satan's frontline preachers," but those who profess faith in Christ and are really pharisaical legalists, walking contrary to the teachings of Paul.
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
Ro 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
This is how I see you, LightSon. With your "good words and fair speeches" deceiving the hearts of the simple with your legalism. I hope I'm wrong.
LightSon
New member
James,
When I wrote that, I was feeling a little fiesty. It came across as more of an attack than I really wanted.
I feel the slap of your hand across my face too. I don't really care to be aligned with the pharasees. Thanks anyway.
I don't have the time to respond tit-for-tat. Perhaps I will later. I'm heading out the door to hear the Messiah; my
daughter is singing in a community choir.
Let me say that, I want to stop short of drawing a hard position on music. I was hoping you would at least try to
differentiate between pop music that has benign lyrics and ones which advocate immoral things.
But now you want to go back to the Garden of Eden, and I must assume it is for the purpose of bolstering your position. I
also notice you chose this approach in lieu of answering my direct questions.
I have so many ways to jump here, I can barely think straight. There are a couple of extremes I am leary of. One is,
"Christians don't sin", which to me translates to "it doesn't matter what I do, because Jesus makes me righteous." I find
that to be dangerous. Another extreme position is, God has ordained all things. God ordained the fall, so if Adam ate the
tree, then that was God's will, despite the fact that God told them "do not eat." This is called hyper-Calvinism, and is close to your position (if I am not mistaken). So whatever you do, it's okay, because God ordained it. (pass me the pipe).
So those are 2 extremes that I think I should wisely avoid.
So the tree wasn't evil, but Eve's eating of it was, since God had told her "no". If you agree with this, please tell me
so.
I wish you could just answer my questions, because I really need to know. This may be a polemical game with you, but for me it is very
serious. I have a history with pretty much all the "vices" mentioned. I view music as a gateway back to a dark part of my
life. Music is rife with pseudo philosophy. It is a type of programming that has the power to influence us. Do you agree
with that? If you are going to open the door for me back into "worldly" music, then I need to know where the boundaries are.
Does that make sense? Because for me, in my conscience, there is little difference between rockin to "Back in Black" and
lightin' up - they go well together, believe you me. If you can't appreciate that, then I'll assume it is for lack of the
troubled past that I have experienced. I would love nothing more than to get loaded and rock to AC/DC. Yet just the thought
of having my pastor know I was doing either, would cause me to feel shame. I ask again, is there nothing we should feel
shame for? you mentioned beer. Do you allow yourself to be filled with drunkenness? I don't see how or why you are
defending that? It honestly confuses me. I thought Jesus saved me from those things, but here you are tellig me, I am
wrong. I'm very confused by you.
I am not trying to set myself up as some great spiritual light. I don't want that Jim. I'm simply fighting for my spiritual
life. Do you know what 18 months in a well-funded crack habit can do to your spiritually?
I go to a church that eschews all these things as functions of darkness. And because I've asked you to defend your position,
you attack me as a false teacher and attempting to lure the flock into some sense of self-righteous behavior. You said,
"This is how I see you, LightSon. With your "good words and fair speeches" deceiving the hearts of the simple with your
legalism. I hope I'm wrong. "
Well I hope you are wrong too. I'm not above trying to look good, and I've played the hypocrit many times. Why would I deny
myself access to rock, drugs and women, if I didn't have to? I enjoy them!!! All things are here to enjoy, right? I think
that was your point. Are there no lines? NO boundaries? No standards? Yes, my church is standards oriented. And yes I do
wonder sometimes if they aren't adding "and neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." But I have been near death before, by
catering to my flesh. Without any better direction, I feel it is better to err on the side of caution.
I haven't decided about you yet. You talk a big game of ministry, but the music thing sends me a mixed message. I really
wish I could see you in action to measure whether there was any meat or depth to your life. Sorry if that comes across as
legalistic , but I have an obligation to try the spirits before I let you influence me. So far all I've gotten is from you
is parry and thrust. Ouch.
When I wrote that, I was feeling a little fiesty. It came across as more of an attack than I really wanted.
I feel the slap of your hand across my face too. I don't really care to be aligned with the pharasees. Thanks anyway.
I don't have the time to respond tit-for-tat. Perhaps I will later. I'm heading out the door to hear the Messiah; my
daughter is singing in a community choir.
Let me say that, I want to stop short of drawing a hard position on music. I was hoping you would at least try to
differentiate between pop music that has benign lyrics and ones which advocate immoral things.
But now you want to go back to the Garden of Eden, and I must assume it is for the purpose of bolstering your position. I
also notice you chose this approach in lieu of answering my direct questions.
I have so many ways to jump here, I can barely think straight. There are a couple of extremes I am leary of. One is,
"Christians don't sin", which to me translates to "it doesn't matter what I do, because Jesus makes me righteous." I find
that to be dangerous. Another extreme position is, God has ordained all things. God ordained the fall, so if Adam ate the
tree, then that was God's will, despite the fact that God told them "do not eat." This is called hyper-Calvinism, and is close to your position (if I am not mistaken). So whatever you do, it's okay, because God ordained it. (pass me the pipe).
So those are 2 extremes that I think I should wisely avoid.
The tree must have been good; God created it. And I suppose it was desireable, since Eve rationalized her way to partake.
So the tree wasn't evil, but Eve's eating of it was, since God had told her "no". If you agree with this, please tell me
so.
I wish you could just answer my questions, because I really need to know. This may be a polemical game with you, but for me it is very
serious. I have a history with pretty much all the "vices" mentioned. I view music as a gateway back to a dark part of my
life. Music is rife with pseudo philosophy. It is a type of programming that has the power to influence us. Do you agree
with that? If you are going to open the door for me back into "worldly" music, then I need to know where the boundaries are.
Does that make sense? Because for me, in my conscience, there is little difference between rockin to "Back in Black" and
lightin' up - they go well together, believe you me. If you can't appreciate that, then I'll assume it is for lack of the
troubled past that I have experienced. I would love nothing more than to get loaded and rock to AC/DC. Yet just the thought
of having my pastor know I was doing either, would cause me to feel shame. I ask again, is there nothing we should feel
shame for? you mentioned beer. Do you allow yourself to be filled with drunkenness? I don't see how or why you are
defending that? It honestly confuses me. I thought Jesus saved me from those things, but here you are tellig me, I am
wrong. I'm very confused by you.
I am not trying to set myself up as some great spiritual light. I don't want that Jim. I'm simply fighting for my spiritual
life. Do you know what 18 months in a well-funded crack habit can do to your spiritually?
I go to a church that eschews all these things as functions of darkness. And because I've asked you to defend your position,
you attack me as a false teacher and attempting to lure the flock into some sense of self-righteous behavior. You said,
"This is how I see you, LightSon. With your "good words and fair speeches" deceiving the hearts of the simple with your
legalism. I hope I'm wrong. "
Well I hope you are wrong too. I'm not above trying to look good, and I've played the hypocrit many times. Why would I deny
myself access to rock, drugs and women, if I didn't have to? I enjoy them!!! All things are here to enjoy, right? I think
that was your point. Are there no lines? NO boundaries? No standards? Yes, my church is standards oriented. And yes I do
wonder sometimes if they aren't adding "and neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." But I have been near death before, by
catering to my flesh. Without any better direction, I feel it is better to err on the side of caution.
I haven't decided about you yet. You talk a big game of ministry, but the music thing sends me a mixed message. I really
wish I could see you in action to measure whether there was any meat or depth to your life. Sorry if that comes across as
legalistic , but I have an obligation to try the spirits before I let you influence me. So far all I've gotten is from you
is parry and thrust. Ouch.
There's where you and I will differ. Nothing is benign. He that is not with me is against me. There is no neutrality. A lyric will be scriptural or anti-scriptural. There are very few songs, Christian or otherwise, that are entirely scriptural. Some Christian songs are more anti-scriptural than secular ones, and even more offensive because they are done by so-called "brothers."
No, it is for the purpose of finding out whether you have a biblical view of aesthetics and morality or not.
I won't answer questions just so some legalist with an unbiblical view of morality can jump all over me with unbiblical criticisms. Prove to me that you're not a legalist and I'll answer your questions.
It is dangerous. It's flatout wrong.
That's not hyper-Calvinism, LightSon. If I didn't have such an aversion to covenant theology, I would be labeled a hyper-Calvinist. What you've described is not even close to hyper-Calvinism. It's more likely the standard Open Theism re-interpretation of a theology Open Theists refuse to understand.
I agree.
Why should it matter what I think? You have a Bible, don't you? It isn't a polemical game with me, nor is it a light matter. What is very serious to me is unbiblical legalism, and I won't stand for it.
It varies from person to person. I smoked a lot of weed, but I was never hooked. I drank a lot of alcohol, but I was never an addict. I smoked a lot of cigarettes, but I never got the monkey. When I listen to Pink Floyd, I remember my weed-smoking days quite vividly, but it doesn't make me want to light up, or wish that I could. I look back fondly on those days of searching and puzzling over the meaning of it all. I thank God for how far I've come and everything He has saved me from.
I'm not doing jack here, LightSon. You are responsible for your own behavior and choices. I have a friend who is a recovering alcoholic. He knows his boundaries. When we go out to dinner, he has a Coke or coffee and I have a beer. I know him well enough to know that the presence of alcohol is not a problem for him. That's not always true with recovering alcoholics and they need to know what their own boundaries are. It's the same with music and drugs.
My friend knows his boundaries, yet he would never tell me that it was wrong to drink alcohol. Your boundaries may be abstaining from rock music. That's fine. But don't go around telling others they can't enjoy it for themselves.
Ack! I don't live for my pastor. The recovering alcoholic I mentioned is one of my pastors.
We should feel shame for sinful behavior.
No. Drunkenness is a sin.
You're wrong for imposing extra- or anti-biblical restrictions on others because of your own troubled past.
That's fine. Keep fighting. But don't drag others into a fight that isn't theirs.
All what things? Rock music? Beer? These are not functions of darkness. Functions of darkness are religious legalism. Religious false doctrine and hypocrisy.
You didn't read very carefully what I wrote. Did you read the verses I quoted? They answer all these questions for you.
From what you've described, they are man-made-tradition oriented, which is what Jesus and Paul condemned.
An error is an error. No error is cautious. What does the Word of God say? That is the question that should be asked and answered. Not the Luciferian taunt. That question should not even be considered.
Now I'm curious. What exactly would you be looking for?
I'm not a spirit, LightSon. We don't try the spirits anymore the way Israel did. The Body of Christ is above the spirits and not subject to them. The demonic realm cannot directly harm a child of God in this dispensation.
Re: ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
Amen, bro. Calivinism is a sick way to view God. He creates a few to live, and many to die. There is no hope in Calvinism, and not much in the way of a loving God. Keep listening to your heart.
Originally posted by Knight
OK… I gotta vent.
I try to be calm and I try to be patient with those that credit bad things to God via Calvinistic theology. But there are some times I simply can’t be patient or cordial because this twisted sick, perverted theology is sometimes too much to handle.
Today I was listening to a Christian station on the radio. And there was a public service spot which featured a woman explaining a heart wrenching story. She explained that she was diagnosed with Leukemia on her child’s first birthday. She explained that she was treated with intense chemotherapy. She went on to say that she was comforted by God (which of course is fantastic). But then she said that God have given her the cancer so God would also give her the strength to get through it.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! :shocked:
Can you imagine that?
Can you imagine a women actual thinking that God had given her cancer???
That is just plain sick!
What ever happened to understanding that it was man’s sin (our rebellion) that brought sickness and death into the world? What ever happened to placing the responsibility for bad things with mankind? So now God is a disease dispenser?
People are just plain stupid.
:dunce:
Amen, bro. Calivinism is a sick way to view God. He creates a few to live, and many to die. There is no hope in Calvinism, and not much in the way of a loving God. Keep listening to your heart.
For "tension", read "contradiction"!
This is the point right here Jim. It's not that we do not understand compatibilism, we understand it just fine. The difference between you and Open Theists is that you are willing to live with what you have here admitted is a glaring contradiction and we are not. We prefer to find a theology that both squares with Scripture and is free from obvious and glaring contradiction. We assume that when we come across a contradiction that it is not an indication of deep truth, but of deep error, or at least a lack of information. We reject contradiction whenever possible while you embrace it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. You are correct, by the way, concerning the issue of being angry at God. God always acts in our best interests, ALWAYS. Any anger toward Him is based upon misunderstanding at best and outright rebellion at worst. Either way, there is simply no occasion which would justly permit our being angry at God.
It's not a contradiction. They are two perfectly compatible truths. It is convenient for Open Theists to exploit compatibilism because they don't understand it. I've yet to meet one who does.
Not true.
Again, it's not a contradiction. Show where there are contradictory claims. See below.
No, you apparently prefer a theology that lets God off the hook for things you would otherwise judge Him for. You use figurative passages to make God less embarrassing and more palatable to the self-righteous, self-legislating, self-important people of the world who just don't like the Big Meanie Judgmental Bully in the Sky as He has been historically presented.
Really? So will now stop saying God is infinite, since you claim that God has limits? The following is a TRUE contradiction, Clete, unlike compatibilism. It's not a tension. It's not merely a philosophical antinomy. It's a blatant, glaring, salient, prominent contradiction:
God is infinite.
God has limits.
Con.Tra.Dic.Shun.
I'm glad to have agreement with you on this, Clete. Unfortunately, I don't think your theology can sustain this claim. I think it tacitly violates this very claim by all its effort to humanize God and to clear Him of having anything to do with evil in the world. I think that your theology's defining characteristic is coming up with ways of absolving God of stuff He is legitimately behind (like the testing of Job) just for the sake of making Him seem more acceptable and "fair" to the gainsayer.
You simply do not understand the concept of infinity Jim. You obviously think that you do, but you definitely do not.
If you have an infinite set of numbers, must it include the number 21?
No! Absolutely not! Don't believe me?
- How many even numbers are there?
- How many prime numbers are there?
- How many negative numbers are there?
- How many numbers are there between 0 and 1?
- How many numbers are there between 1 and 2?
There are 5 different sets of numbers that I just came up with off the top of my head that are all both limited in that they do not include every possible number and yet are all infinite in extent. (There is actually more than 5 sets. In fact, there are an infinite number of sets which do not include the number 21.)
In fact, you know that a set of anything (numbers, grains of sand, time, space, size, power etc) is infinite if you can remove some of its elements without reducing its number or size or volume or whatever. That's how you know. The very definition of infinity belies the stance you've taken on this issue. By its very nature, something does not have to include everything in order to be infinite, that's how we know that it is infinite.
Now, can you as clearly and without logical incoherence explain how compatibilism isn't contradictory as I have with the ideas of infinity and limitation? Or will you now stop saying...
"We also understand that we are responsible for our decisions and actions because, while God did indeed decree these, He also commands us to strive for obedience in spite of our sin natures, and has empowered us through His Holy Spirit to obey. Our own inability to fully comprehend the tension in the facts doesn't preclude us for worshipfully acknowledging and believing them to be true."
Resting in Him,
Clete