Does Calvinism limit God?

[Z Man]

Re: Was I that confusing, or are you that ...

Re: Was I that confusing, or are you that ...

Originally posted by 1Way
Now, this time, consider what I said only without separating everything as you did. You see, when you simply consider the context that the meaning in question is used in, often the clarity is self provided. You have to ignore the context to not understand what I meant when I used the word "all". Let that be a lesson to you, if you are so inclined towards understanding the truth without violating the context for which it belongs.

Dude, I'm not stupid, so don't talk to me like I am. Thank you.

You posted this:

So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all? Or do you believe that there is no such things as sins of omission, just sins of commission?

Your first question was "what is your view". View of what? You explain in the next sentence; my view on "Does God control everything". If I agree that He does, then that's when your third sentence comes into play, which states, Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all. Hence is a cause and effect transition. That third sentence is valid only if I believe that God does indeed control everything, agreeing with your second sentence, which I do.

So, because I do believe God controls everything, you asked me does that mean God is responsible for it all. Now my question to you was simply what do you mean by all? That's such a general word. It could mean a broad spectrum of things. Before I go on rambling about about what I assume your definition of "all" means, I thought that I would simply ask for your definition of the word.

Any person who reads your paragraph will make the same observations as I have. Therefore, if you believe that I did not understand you correctly, I suggest you clarify your ideas and concerns a lot better than you did.

Now let's move on. I do not wish to debate about symantics or grammar or anything of the sort.

You see, I was referring to the idea of God being in control of "everything" thus because of moral deeds of omission "and" commission, since God controls everything by His wills as I suspected you would say, then unless you don't believe in sins of omission, how do you rescue God from being the most evil person ever. So I was not questioning if God opposes evil. You have to be really careless, or trying to misunderstand what I said to get that out of my simple and clear post to you. Please try again to understand what I actually said, and respond to what I actually communicated....

I did.

Do you suggest that [God] is not powerful enough to stop all evil from happening? Please explain.

God is most definitly powerful enough to stop evil, but doing so would rob us of the one thing we enjoy; the glory of God.

God desires self-exaltation. He wants nothing more than to see people worship, praise, and glorify Him because He knows that in doing so, people are most happy and satisfied. And sometimes, to get the glory that God demands, He allows evil to happen, or He will destroy or create calamity to bring His glory about. He allows evil for a much greater cause - a cause that we all benefit from and desire - the glorification of God.

I think that what I have posted here may represent perhaps an early junior high level grade of reading/writting skill, perhaps even lower than that, I hope you can read for comprehension at a higher capability than what you have displayed so far. (Boy oh boy, some people's kids, ya gotta constantly watch over them, tell then what to do, make them shape up, and some just are sooooo, ,,, .)

Again, we're both adults here. Treat the conversation as such. Show some respect, and we might have a good debate here; one in which we could both learn a few things.

In everything, may God be glorified!

:zman:

 

[1Way]

Paint by numbers...

Paint by numbers...

Z man - I don't simply go by claims, I'm big on truth and righteousness, I go by the (demonstrative/established) truth and righteousness of a matter. I'll see if I can help you.



(My advise to you specifically on this issue) (ridicule mode: off)
A word (or smaller unit of communication) is subjugated to it's (contextual) use within phrases and sentences and paragraphs and chapters and so on (or larger units of communication).

• If
  
  you don't understand the meaning from some smaller unit(s) of communication,
  
  then
  
  continue reading to see if the idea progresses to be fleshed out in the ongoing contextual development
  
  but, if
  
  you do understand the meaning from the some smaller unit(s) of communication,
  
  then
  
  ignore the suggestion to continue reading to grasp the idea conveyed by that unit, but don't forget to keep the wider context in mind for it's added contextual development and do not violate the (wider) context.

Many people naturally assume that since they place ideas consecutive one after the other, and because each idea further advances the train of thought, that such a logical connection is a good way to communicate and develop what you are trying to say. Maybe I'm wrong, but it (normally) works for me (sans willful problem interjecting), I sincerely hope it helps you to remember to 1) understand and 2) not violate the context.



(The text explained) (verbose mode: on)
Here is the confusing text Z man just can not understand sufficiently, even after two attempts and one solid clue about what I meant to convey.

(1) So what is your view? (2) Does God control everything (3) through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? (4) Hence (5) God is ultimately responsible for it all (6) ? (7) Or (8) do you believe that there is no such things as sins of omission, just sins of commission?

(1) Right, this sentence begs the question, about what? Which may give a subtle clue to the reader that he must consider the wider context in order to understand what view the writer has in mind.

(2) Fortunately, you understand this question which was demonstrated by your simple and clear response. This is the first contextual development of what the writer is referring to in the opening statement, and if this is accurate, the ensuing ideas should conform and or modify this idea through natural contextual development.

(3) Again, you understood this idea and affirmed it to be according to your belief, and we see that this idea is further development of what the writer has in mind.

(4) Here is where your understanding broke down. The word Hence, is a connecting word, like train cars connecting together by the hooks at each end of the train car, those hooks connect trains of thought together! Other words and phrases do the same sort of thing, like; and, although, indeed, even so, but, then again, yet, therefore, and the ever popular hence. So do not separate the proceeding ideas from the following ideas, they are connected together as in a developing train of thought.

(5) That idea is a natural continuation of the previous ideas. So the words "it all" is a simple reference to the previous word "everything" and the word "everything" (as you already demonstrated you know) modifies (or describes) the idea of how much "God controls", and you understood that last bit because you answered that much with a clear answer, saying yes, God controls everything.

(6) So the comment restated within its contextual development, is, God is responsible for all that He controls, and God (does or does not) controls everything. Actually, my wording assumes your response to the former question in the affirmative that God does control everything, that is why I thought it appropriate to not present the follow up idea (God is responsible for everything) in more than one form. So heres a restatement of question 6, is God ultimately responsible for (all of) everything that He controls?

(7) "Or", again I am employing a crafty communication tool, I am conjoining the previous ideas to the following ideas with one single word, it's technical name is a conjunction, but lay people may refer to it as a "connecting word", like connecting so many cars in a train of thought!

(8) This is the last contextually developed idea concerning the opening line about your view. It is saying,

doesn't sins of omission exist?

And more than that, if you were to put the entire train of thought together, linked and developed as they naturally are, you have the following implication and train of thought.

Because of the reality of sins of omission, and because beings are only responsible over that which that have control over, and since God is said to have control over everything, obviously including sin and evil, how do you account for all those sins of omission committed by God? Which brings me to my final thought, how do you rescue God from being responsible for every sin and evil that ever has or will take place? In fact, that is exactly what I continue to say, showing a complete logical contextual flow and development, where the entire communication is linked together contextually, starting with the more basic foundational ideas first, and ending up with the final challenge to your position. Here is the second part of what I said.

God's word is unambiguous, if you allow evil to easily happen when you could have stopped it or somehow opposed it, that is an evil thing to "do", to not actively oppose evil.

So how do you rescue God from being the most evil person ever?

I hope this helped you understand for comprehension's sake, what I said. Also, respectful discourse is a two way street, the level of trust and respect between any two people is always only as high or good and the weekest link. The links on your side of the chain are shall we say, in need of improvement. As for my side, I'd love to have a respectable discussion, that is why I am here and asking these things of you. Please don't confuse my good as bad, I assumed that the use and funtion of conjunctions, and the fact of contextual developement would be common knowledge. But that's fine, the water under the bridge seems passed us now. Since you are kindly asking for it, I extend grace on our behalf and for the bond we have in Christ.

May the truth and righteousness be our guide.

 

[1Way]

Let me see if I can order the issues in a tight logical progression.

Granting the following:

• Sin and evil is that which goes against God and His will
  
  God controls everything including sin and evil
  
  Beings are responsible only and precisely for that which they have control over
  
  God is powerful and good enough to stop all sin and evil
  
  Sin and evil happen on a large and hideous scale in reality
  
  Omitting opposition against sin and evil, is in itself a sin, an evil

So, to say as you do that God controls everything, is the same as saying that God is responsible for everything, and since sin and evil plagues and even predominates this world, how do you rescue God from being responsible for (and/or controlling) all sin and evil?


As to what you said

God is most definitely powerful enough to stop evil, but doing so would rob us of the one thing we enjoy; the glory of God.

God desires self-exaltation. He wants nothing more than to see people worship, praise, and glorify Him because He knows that in doing so, people are most happy and satisfied. And sometimes, to get the glory that God demands, He allows evil to happen, or He will destroy or create calamity to bring His glory about. He allows evil for a much greater cause - a cause that we all benefit from and desire - the glorification of God.

So your answer is apparently, you do not rescue God from being responsible for all sin and evil. And so right there we have an immediate contradiction. I could demonstrate from scripture how wrong it is to praise and worship anything connect with sin and evil, but we will get no where with contradiction at the foundation.

Sin and evil are that which go against God and His will
if as you say, sin and evil are a part of, and not diametrically against God and His will, then you are working with more than one working understanding of what sin and evil actually mean. Please explain because foundational issues matter, and duplicity is another word for instability or an unstable mind. Moving closer to the truth, one doable step at a time.

Pleasant, respectful, intelligent, clear, logical, and thoughtfully poring over this issue for our mutual benefit.

 

[Z Man]

Re: Paint by numbers...

Re: Paint by numbers...

Originally posted by 1Way
Z man - I don't simply go by claims, I'm big on truth and righteousness, I go by the (demonstrative/established) truth and righteousness of a matter. I'll see if I can help you.

I definitely do not need your help. Thanks anyways.

The rest of that post was nothing more than a "politically correct" way to ridicule me in the ways of grammar or what not. I already stated that I had no particular interest in debating on that subject. I understand exactly what your statement was implying, and I answered your statement. Just because you do not like my answer does not mean that I'm wrong...

Sin and evil are that which go against God and His will
if as you say, sin and evil are a part of, and not diametrically against God and His will, then you are working with more than one working understanding of what sin and evil actually mean. Please explain because foundational issues matter, and duplicity is another word for instability or an unstable mind. Moving closer to the truth, one doable step at a time.

God's will was that His Son be crucified. The death of Christ was the greatest evil imaginable; mankind murdered the Son of God!!! Yet, God allowed it to happen....

:think:

 

[Mr Potato Head]

God's will was that His Son be crucified. The death of Christ was the greatest evil imaginable; mankind murdered the Son of God!!! Yet, God allowed it to happen....

Ok, so since he manipulated the already evil men to get the evil necessary for the most pivotal act of history to happen he must cause it for every individual atrocity throughout history... :down:

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Mr Potato Head

Ok, so since he manipulated the already evil men to get the evil necessary for the most pivotal act of history to happen he must cause it for every individual atrocity throughout history... :down:

The point is, God uses evil for His glory. So what's the problem of Him using it through other people's lives? If He allowed the most imaginable evil ever to be committed against His Son, what's the big deal if He allows it in other people's lives?

 

[Rolf Ernst]

BILLWALD--Your post #94 is an atrocious misrepresentation of the reformed faith. Reformed people agree with the Scripture that the Holy Spirit raises sinners from death into life, regenerating them and creating new creatures in Christ; not on the basis of anything those "dead" sinners under the wrath of God did, but solely because they were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
"Awake, you who sleep, arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light." To misrepresent someone is to bear false witness against them.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1WAY--Your post #91: How do YOU, a mere mortal who is unable to see the justice and holiness of God as His vindicates His holy law by judgements against violators of it, RESCUE HIM FROM BEING EVIL?
And you don't even have the sense to see the blasphemy in what you have said.
You insist on blaspheming God by casting Him into the same lot as those who violate His law.
"The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned."
Or are you just to stupid to understand that God, in His holiness, might have a holy and good purpose in the same event about which a man such as yourself might have only an EVIL motive?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

1WAY--Your post #91: How do YOU, a mere mortal who is unable to see the justice and holiness of God as His vindicates His holy law by judgements against violators of it, RESCUE HIM FROM BEING EVIL?
And you don't even have the sense to see the blasphemy in what you have said.
You insist on blaspheming God by casting Him into the same lot as those who violate His law.
"The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned."
Or are you just to stupid to understand that God, in His holiness, might have a holy and good purpose in the same event about which a man such as yourself might have only an EVIL motive?

:thumb:

 

[Mr Potato Head]

If He allowed the most imaginable evil ever to be committed against His Son, what's the big deal if He allows it in other people's lives?

If he predestined the rape and murder of an infant that's a big deal. Besides, no one's saying he doesn't allow evil, unless you think that the world's still "very good," just that the God who died for us is above it and does" not willingly bring affliction or grief to the children of men" (Lam. 3:33). Evil is a product of the sins of men and angels, not God's will.

Or are you just to stupid to understand that God, in His holiness, might have a holy and good purpose in the same event about which a man such as yourself might have only an EVIL motive?

"Dear God, thank you for allowing my 4 year old daughter to be kidnapped. I don't know if she's alive or has her virginity still but God you are good! John Calvin says that it's part of your plan and we know how wise he is! And God, thank you for the kidnapper, thank you for that instrument of your wrath on little Sarah.
In Jesus, yes, the very one who said 'let the little children come,' name,
Amen"

 

[Rolf Ernst]

POTATO HEAD: Who ever said that God manipulates? Those are YOUR words. They are not the words of Scripture, nor of anyone other than yourself. God gave them up (as in Romans 1:24,26, and 28 and in psalm 81:11,12), and they, from the evil of their nature, did the works of SATAN THEIR FATHER. They did according to the works of SATAN THEIR FATHER. FROM OUT OF THE EVIL OF THEIR OWN HEART, THEY MOVED WITH WICKED INTENT, JUST AS SATAN THEIR FATHER DOES.
Therefore, when YOU charge God with evil simply because He had a HOLY purpose in what took place, you blasphemer, you are placing the thrice HOLY God on the same level as Satan, charging Him with the evil residing in the heart of evildoers.
Your wicked heart may be gleeful over that, blasphemer, but you be sure of this:"FOR EVERY IDLE WORD THAT MAN SPEAKS, HE WILL GIVE AN ACCOUNT."
Are you demon posessed??????????????? It is sickening to deal with you people who refuse to see that in the same event, men may act with wicked intent, but God's purpose in that event is just and perfect.
Now listen, you blasphemers--hear the word of God: "Even the wrath of man shall praise you, and the remainder of wrath you will restrain." Psalm 76:10 Your charging Him with guilt because He works truth and justice even when men are fighting against
Him is a part of that "wrath" from men from which He will get praise to Himself. When the righteous see that God did not let your idle words against Him go unpunished, they will rejoice!!!!!!!
Read that last verse again and realize the no sin--not even one-- which God does not work to His praise is allowed by Him to take place. Whether you understand or not, it is in your best interest to SHUT YOUR BLASPHEMOUS MOUTHS ON THIS ISSUE!!

 

[1Way]

One doable step at a time, walking uprightly in truth and righteousness

One doable step at a time, walking uprightly in truth and righteousness

Z Man - I explained what you said and demonstrated that you did not understand. Yet you assume that you answered me even though you absolutely did not, instead you asked what I meant. You said

Originally posted by 1Way
So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills?

Of course He does.

Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all?

What do you mean when you say "all"?

Not only that, after you said that, I followed up with an explanation of what I meant so that you could then hopefully understand and respond to what I said. I said the following precisely to help you understand what you plainly said you did not understand.

Now, this time, consider what I said only without separating everything as you did.

quoting the same text again...

You see, when you simply consider the context that the meaning in question is used in, often the clarity is self provided. You have to ignore the context to not understand what I meant when I used the word "all". Let that be a lesson to you, if you are so inclined towards understanding the truth without violating the context for which it belongs.

And you even responded yet another time saying that you still were not clear about what I meant even after my attempt at demonstrating what you did wrong. You posted the following in a more collected fashion, but without my follow up explanation of what I meant. It's like you are trying to avoid what I am trying to say.

So what is your view? Does God control everything through His declarative and passive/permitting wills? Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all? Or do you believe that there is no such things as sins of omission, just sins of commission?

Your first question was "what is your view". View of what? You explain in the next sentence; my view on "Does God control everything". If I agree that He does, then that's when your third sentence comes into play, which states, Hence God is ultimately responsible for it all. Hence is a cause and effect transition. That third sentence is valid only if I believe that God does indeed control everything, agreeing with your second sentence, which I do.

So, because I do believe God controls everything, you asked me does that mean God is responsible for it all. (1) Now my question to you was simply what do you mean by all? That's such a general word. It could mean a broad spectrum of things. Before I go on rambling about about what I assume your definition of "all" means, I thought that I would simply ask for your definition of the word.

(2) Any person who reads your paragraph will make the same observations as I have. (3) Therefore, if you believe that I did not understand you correctly, I suggest you clarify your ideas and concerns a lot better than you did.

Now let's move on. I do not wish to debate about symantics or grammar or anything of the sort.

(1) And I trusted your sincerity over not understanding, so I went to great pains to explain what I meant, yet you charge wrong doing for my good.

(2) You say that the problem of understanding what I said is with my communication, not the audience. Again you argue that you did not understand what I said.

(3) What are you talking about, you never even indicated that you understand what I am talking about, you just got done argueing why you did not understand it, and what, now you do? You are not very clear at all, in fact, you seem as confused as could be. Yet, after me going into verbose mode and going step by step over the text in question, including my explanation of what I meant by the use of the words, it all, after all that, you come back with

I definitely do not need your help. Thanks anyways.

The rest of that post was nothing more than a "politically correct" way to ridicule me in the ways of grammar or what not. I already stated that I had no particular interest in debating on that subject. I understand exactly what your statement was implying, and I answered your statement. Just because you do not like my answer does not mean that I'm wrong...

That is not true, you never answered if God is responsible for it all, instead you strung me along all this time in an effect to clarify what I meant. And I thought you were being honest about your problem with understanding. ??? The fact is that everything stated above actually did take place, and actually was our discussion over this issue of misunderstanding, including my verbose mode explanation which I did not repost for brevities sake. You only constantly maintain that you did not understand because I was not clear enough!

So which is it? I finally was clear enough for you to understand and respond, or I never was clear enough which was your story until just now when you altered it 100% from not understanding me, to understanding me enough to have already answered me.

If you can not deal honestly with such a simple and self evident issue, how can anyone expect you to be upright with anything more important and complex? Help us understand what you are trying to say so that we can move on.

 

[godrulz]

The life and ministry of the Son of God reveals the way God is (see me= see Father).

Jesus came to oppose, resist, and destroy evil. He did not affirm evil as inherently good or in the will of God. It is a risky consequence of creating moral agents with genuine freedom. God creatively redeems and mitigates evil at times, but this does not mean it is consistent with His character or causation.

 

[1Way]

God "controlled" evil directly OR "responded" rightly against evil w/thier own e

God "controlled" evil directly OR "responded" rightly against evil w/thier own e

Z Man and all - I think we have a problem of not dealing upright with moral responsibility. God holds the person responsible for the evil, not the victim or anyone else. The evil done upon Jesus at the cross was in no way attributed to God, it was done by man's self directed self controlled evil will. Consider.

Rom 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

So it is a false question about God being implicated in the evil that took place upon Jesus, what God did do was righteous by passing over sins, it is loving and good to give your life for your friends, no implication of wrong doing in that. It is only when the person believes the overstated idea that "God is in control of everything" that somehow scripture must have been wrong when it describes God's involvement of the death of Jesus at the cruxifiction as "righteous" and "just", not as Z Man and others are trying to say. God is right, the omni-causalist is wrong. God is not in control of everything, man is in control of his own free will, and it is always through free will moral agents that evil (or for that matter good) comes from.

So the evil at the cross was done by man although God did not absolutely know how it would be done, God was wise enough to know that He would have no shortage of evil men who would kill His son if given half the chance. So the evil intentions were already there in place, so for God to do His work of redemption, all He had to do was to deceive the deceiver, and make the devil think that by killing Jesus, Christ would be vanquished, but He rose from the dead and Jesus Christ is Lord and God and the devil won nothing.

Like in a hand to hand combat, I think jujitsu or is it judo, is where it is noted for using your opponents efforts against himself. Same principle is used here, God did something good, by tricking the devil into thinking that it would be good to kill Jesus, instead he sealed his own doom. God did not direct, control nor orchestrate the evil that killed Jesus, He just realized it existed in abundance and used the evil efforts and intentions of men that already existed to thwart evil. And such a thing is always a good thing to do, to use your enemies resources against him.

When trying to determine who is responsible when there are more than one party involved, you always need to ask the question, was that a response to something evil or the initial cause of something evil? It is always good to oppose evil, and that is exactly what God did at the cross, and it is always wrong to cause evil, and that is exactly not what God did at the cross.

Z Man said

The point is, God uses evil for His glory.

Where is that from, first Pagans chapter one verse one? That is about as opposite of the truth as could be, and since you are saved, you should know that by the leading of the HS let alone the teaching of scripture. Consider the question, was God responding to evil in a righteous way? Or did God cause the evil directly Himself. So really Z Man, because of your errent presuppositions, you are forced to say the most ungodly things about,,, God of all things. I hope you can objectively review your thoughts on this, because it is always right to respond righteously to an evil that already exists, even if you use the enemies effort against them, that is a righteous response, that is NOT causing the evil.

 

[1Way]

A response against evil is righteous even if U use their effort against the evil doer

A response against evil is righteous even if U use their effort against the evil doer

Mr Potato - I think you are being caught by the omnicausal position when you need not be. If you grant that God used/controlled evil once, then what is the difference if He did it 10 or a thousand or everytime evil happens? The point is that it was evil and a righteous God should always oppose evil. I do not grant that God was responsable for any evil at the cross because God said so in Rom 3:25-26. Notice, He did not say that He is glorified in evil, He says that it was a good thing to pass over sins.

I agree with Z Man that if God did the most evil thing imaginable, any lessor evil would just be that much easier to (try to) justify. I hope you agree with me that these omnicausalists are trying to establish a new definition for what sin and evil is.

Sin and evil is that which goes against God and His will (Right?)

unless it's a good godly sort of sin and evil, then it's not sin, err, well, it's, God glorifying evil. err. ya.

See? I don't say that it was God's will for evil intentions to kill Jesus, I say that those evil intentions were simply responded against in a righteous fashion. Resonse is the key idea. They are a funny bunch, God glorifies in evil, chuckles, now was that out of the Satanic bible or what?

 

[Mr Potato Head]

POTATO HEAD: Who ever said that God manipulates? Those are YOUR words. They are not the words of Scripture, nor of anyone other than yourself. God gave them up (as in Romans 1:24,26, and 28 and in psalm 81:11,12), and they, from the evil of their nature, did the works of SATAN THEIR FATHER. They did according to the works of SATAN THEIR FATHER. FROM OUT OF THE EVIL OF THEIR OWN HEART, THEY MOVED WITH WICKED INTENT, JUST AS SATAN THEIR FATHER DOES.
Therefore, when YOU charge God with evil simply because He had a HOLY purpose in what took place, you blasphemer, you are placing the thrice HOLY God on the same level as Satan, charging Him with the evil residing in the heart of evildoers.
Your wicked heart may be gleeful over that, blasphemer, but you be sure of this:"FOR EVERY IDLE WORD THAT MAN SPEAKS, HE WILL GIVE AN ACCOUNT."
Are you demon posessed??????????????? It is sickening to deal with you people who refuse to see that in the same event, men may act with wicked intent, but God's purpose in that event is just and perfect.
Now listen, you blasphemers--hear the word of God: "Even the wrath of man shall praise you, and the remainder of wrath you will restrain." Psalm 76:10 Your charging Him with guilt because He works truth and justice even when men are fighting against
Him is a part of that "wrath" from men from which He will get praise to Himself. When the righteous see that God did not let your idle words against Him go unpunished, they will rejoice!!!!!!!
Read that last verse again and realize the no sin--not even one-- which God does not work to His praise is allowed by Him to take place. Whether you understand or not, it is in your best interest to SHUT YOUR BLASPHEMOUS MOUTHS ON THIS ISSUE!!

:darwinsm:

Who ever said Trinity?? Not scripture...

Yet when God uses the evil nation of Assyria to accomplish his purpose of destroying Israel, that is manipulating them. When
God used the evil of the Sanheidrin and the Romans, that was manipulating them. And I'll bet you could ask just about any Christian on this site if God manipulates evil men and they will say yes. I guarantee I'm not the only one anyways.

Your charging Him with guilt because He works truth and justice even when men are fighting against
Him is a part of that "wrath" from men from which He will get praise to Himself.

Now there's an example of manipulation! You blasphemer you...

And I'm gonna use your tactic right here: WHAT POSSIBLE GREATER GOOD COULD GOD BRING OUT OF 2 MILLION SLAUGHTERED JEWISH CHILDREN OR THE VICIOUS ABUSE AND MURDER OF A SINGLE INNOCENT CHILD???

 

[Mr Potato Head]

1Way - I don't think you can avoid the conclusion that God has manipulated evil men, nor is it necessary, to accomplish his purposes (the cross, the judgment on Israel, etc). But there is a huge difference between God causing EVERY act of evil and the biblical instances of God's using evil men in his judgment and at the cross. But I could be missing something.

 

[1Way]

Mr Potato - Manipulate is a good term, it does not necessarily mean to cause or to be responsible for evil, but in this context and discussion, it may be somewhat unclear how one can manipulate/use evil and not be responsible for that evil. I like to focus on if God was responding to evil, or causing the evil. Naturally, God responds to evil and does not cause evil, and when He responds to evil, He always responds against it, even if He uses the effort of the enemy against the evil doer. You see, in the context of the righteous responding against the evil doer, you can even say use evil and no one would think that God caused or is responsible for it by His will, because the context says that God righteously responds against evil, even using their own efforts against them.

I like my judo example, where your opponent tries to punch you and you anticipate that effort and turn aside so that his body comes closer to your and you grab his arm and use his effort against him by flipping him over your hip and backside where he lands on his back wishing he had never done that. The evil doer in that example wanted to harm you, but you used his effort not to harm you, but to harm him instead. The evil intentions of the devil was to kill "and vanquish" Jesus, he did not want Him to be raised from the dead while simultane ously providing redemption for the world. If the devil had known that Christ was using the devil's own evil efforts to accomplish something totally different than what the devil intended on doing, he would never had done it. But God deceived the deceiver and we are victorious in Christ through His righteous work of redemption at the cross.

 

[Mr Potato Head]

Mr Potato - Manipulate is a good term, it does not necessarily mean to cause or to be responsible for evil, but in this context and discussion, it may be somewhat unclear how one can manipulate/use evil and not be responsible for that evil. I like to focus on if God was responding to evil, or causing the evil. Naturally, God responds to evil and does not cause evil, and when He responds to evil, He always responds against it, even if He uses the effort of the enemy against the evil doer. You see, in the context of the righteous responding against the evil doer, you can even say use evil and no one would think that God caused or is responsible for it by His will, because the context says that God righteously responds against evil, even using their own efforts against them.

I like my judo example, where your opponent tries to punch you and you anticipate that effort and turn aside so that his body comes closer to your and you grab his arm and use his effort against him by flipping him over your hip and backside where he lands on his back wishing he had never done that. The evil doer in that example wanted to harm you, but you used his effort not to harm you, but to harm him instead. The evil intentions of the devil was to kill "and vanquish" Jesus, he did not want Him to be raised from the dead while simultane ously providing redemption for the world. If the devil had known that Christ was using the devil's own evil efforts to accomplish something totally different than what the devil intended on doing, he would never had done it. But God deceived the deceiver and we are victorious in Christ through His righteous work of redemption at the cross.

:thumb:

 

[Z Man]

Re: One doable step at a time, walking uprightly in truth and righteousness

Re: One doable step at a time, walking uprightly in truth and righteousness

Originally posted by 1Way

Z Man - I explained what you said and demonstrated that you did not understand. Yet you assume that you answered me even though you absolutely did not, instead you asked what I meant.

Dude, you suck at debating. You seriously need to grow up and stop playing this childish game. What the heck are you whining about anyways? You started this whole ordeal with a simple question that I have answered a long time ago. You asked me if I believed that God was in control of everything. I said yes. That's it! There's your freakin' answer! So stop crying about how I never answered your stupid question to begin with!!!