# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Woe To Those Who Say The Potter Has No Hands

## Sola_Fide

How many here believe that the Potter has no hands?  Several.





> *Isaiah 45:9-10
> 
> “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
>     those who are nothing but potsherds
>     among the potsherds on the ground.
> Does the clay say to the potter,
>     ‘What are you making?’
> Does your work say,
>     ‘The potter has no hands’?*

----------


## Christian Liberty

This is probably your best argument yet for your position about Arminianism.  I'm going to have to study and pray through this one.

----------


## acptulsa

> 19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.


An argument against Arminianism?  Or an argument against not telling God who to save, not telling Christians it doesn't matter if they even try not to sin (despite what God told them in Scripture to the contrary), and not telling yourself you had better behave yourself lest God think you have a quarrel with Him?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> An argument against Arminianism?  Or an argument against not telling God who to save, not telling Christians it doesn't matter if they even try not to sin (despite what God told them in Scripture to the contrary), and not telling yourself you had better behave yourself lest God think you have a quarrel with Him?


No, its none of that (who even knows what you're talking about).

It is:  Woe to you who say that the Potter does not mold His pots with His own hands for His own purpose.




> *Isaiah 45:9-10
> 
> “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
>  those who are nothing but potsherds
>  among the potsherds on the ground.
>  Does the clay say to the potter,
> ‘What are you making?’
> Does your work say,
> ‘The potter has no hands’?*

----------


## acptulsa

> No, its none of that (who even knows what you're talking about).


Someone who's actually qualified to say if it's all of that, none of that or in between.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Someone who's actually qualified to say if it's all of that, none of that or in between.


Do you believe that the Potter has hands?  Or do you believe that the Potter has no hands?

----------


## acptulsa

> Do you believe that the Potter has hands?  Or do you believe that the Potter has no hands?


I don't believe the Potter has any use for _your_ hands.  But I'm sure somebody does.

----------


## Sola_Fide

So....no answer to the question.


Acptulsa, I really would suggest trying to have a teachable spirit.  Your pride and smart remarks are keeping you in darkness.

----------


## acptulsa

> So....no answer to the question.
> 
> 
> acptulsa, I realy would suggest trying to have a teachable spirit.  Your pride and smart remarks are keeping you in darkness.


It's brighter here than in those traps you're constantly setting out.

But that doesn't mean I'm not learning anything.  Why, just today I've learned that Armenian Arminians are already an endangered species.  And I just learned a new euphemism for 'dumb enough to walk right into an obvious trap,' too.

----------


## pcosmar

You know.. I have questioned God,, and I likely will again.. ( He is my friend,, I talk to Him) Sometimes I argue,, (He never does) He is more patient than I,, but I am learning.

I used to wonder why,, Why did He do this?,, Why is this world what it is? Why the whole Temptation,and Fall and Salvation and judgment? Why?,, I asked.

And you know what.

He answered me..

----------


## RJB

> It's brighter here than in those traps you're constantly setting out.


There are no traps.  He posts a verse and says, "No one but me and two others on the forum believe and/or follow this verse."

Others pop in and say, "Yes we do."

And he and his two friends say, "No you don't."

This goes on for 5 pages.  Finally one of the 3 will say, "Well, If you don't believe (fill in a doctrine) then you don't believe (fill in something that doesn't necessarily relate to first fill in .)

Then things get personal for 5 pages.

There.  I just saved us a few pages and a few days of bickering.  Lets all go have a beer.  Actually I'm going to share some time and a bottle of good wine with my wife. Have a Good Evening

----------


## VIDEODROME

Indeed.  Starting the holiday weekend with some good beer.

----------


## moostraks

> *How many here believe* that the Potter has no hands? * Several*.





> PUT YOUR BIG GIRL PANTIES ON AND DEBATE THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF MAKING YOUR POSTS ABOUT PERSONAL SQUABBLES.


And are you gonna name names since you have made such an accusation against people on the forum? Seems only fair so the accused may present a case to rebut this accusation. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke without documentation again.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And are you gonna name names since you have made such an accusation against people on the forum? Seems only fair so the accused may present a case to rebut this accusation. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke without documentation again.


Do you think the Potter has hands?  Or do you think the Potter has no hands?

----------


## VIDEODROME

Isaiah 45: 15




> Truly you are a God who has been hiding himself,

----------


## pcosmar

> Do you think the Potter has hands?  Or do you think the Potter has no hands?


I believe that the Creator is all powerful and can do as he wishes.

However,



> You know.. I have questioned God,, and I likely will again.. ( He is my friend,, I talk to Him) Sometimes I argue,, (He never does) He is more patient than I,, but I am learning.
> 
> I used to wonder why,, Why did He do this?,, Why is this world what it is? Why the whole Temptation,and Fall and Salvation and judgment? Why?,, I asked.
> 
> And you know what.
> 
> He answered me..


I was arguing with him at the time. Angry over something (don't remember what)

And I would change your Woe to Woah..

Ask him,, and if you ask honestly,, he will answer.

But Woah,, you may not like the answer. It goes far beyond "Because he can". (of course he can) Yes he can,, but the *why* will shake up your toy box.

----------


## acptulsa

> There are no traps.  He posts a verse and says, "No one but me and two others on the forum believe and/or follow this verse."
> 
> Others pop in and say, "Yes we do."
> 
> And he and his two friends say, "No you don't."
> 
> This goes on for 5 pages.  Finally one of the 3 will say, "Well, If you don't believe (fill in a doctrine) then you don't believe (fill in something that doesn't necessarily relate to first fill in .)
> 
> Then things get personal for 5 pages.
> ...


That's the trap.  Never seen a glimmer of light in it.

Oh, and you forgot this:  'The Bible uses [_insert inconvenient word here_] metaphorically.'

----------


## moostraks

> Do you think the Potter has hands?  Or do you think the Potter has no hands?


You are the one who made the proposition. Are you going to name whom you are accusing? Or are you recanting? Accused people should have the right to face their accusers.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There are no traps.  He posts a verse and says, "No one but me and two others on the forum believe and/or follow this verse."
> 
> Others pop in and say, "Yes we do."
> 
> And he and his two friends say, "No you don't."
> 
> This goes on for 5 pages.  Finally one of the 3 will say, "Well, If you don't believe (fill in a doctrine) then you don't believe (fill in something that doesn't necessarily relate to first fill in .)
> 
> Then things get personal for 5 pages.
> ...


On another forum, a Ron Paulian libertarian, let's name him RPL (For "Ron Paulian Libertarian") was having an online debate with neoconservative (who holds to neocon political views), liberal (who holds to liberal political views), communist (who holds to communist political views), and centrist (you get the idea)

RPL mentions something about liberty.  neoconservative, liberal, communist, and centrist race to be the first to say they also believe in liberty.

RPL points out that these people don't actually believe in liberty, but they think they do because they define the word "liberty' in an incorrect manner.

neoconservative insists that supporting liberty and a massive, warmongering police state is not inconsistent.  He says "I support liberty too RPL, but I'm also a realist, I believe that if you aren't safe you aren't free, and so the NSA spying on all of us, TSA patdowns, and making you pay huge amounts of taxes to go to war overseas is actually making you freer!  You may have your political views, but don't try to tell me I don't support liberty just because I believe all this other stuff that doesn't fit YOUR interpretation of liberty.

The liberal insists that his desire to take half of RPL's income to fund social programs and indoctrinating public schools is not inconsistent with his belief in liberty, and that RPL is being mean by saying that liberal does not really believe in liberty.  He says that if you don't have wealth you can't do what you want to do and thus aren't really free, and thus RPL is actually opposing liberty because he refuses to endorse taxation of the rich and middle classes to redistribute wealth downwards (to "help the poor") and upwards (to save dying companies and thus "maintain jobs.")  Liberal says that he is not trying to prevent RPL from sharing his opinion, he is only saying that it is rude to refuse to acknowledge more statist positions as also being libertarian and compatible with liberty.

Communist and centrist do more or less their thing with their political views.  RPL once again insists that none of the four actually believe in liberty, because they do not know what liberty is.  This results in communist, liberal, neoconservative, and centrist calling RPL "intolerant" and saying that all four of them agree that all five positions that are involved in this debate are fundamentally libertarian and pro-liberty, and that it is only RPL who is being divisive and "lying about the beliefs of the others" because he says they do not support liberty.

RPL reminds the others that there are hundreds of thousands (at least) of people who think like him and that define liberty correctly, so he isn't saying that only he understands what liberty means.  He also acknowledges that he does not have a pefect understanding of liberty, that he reads libertarian theorists, including but not limited to Ron Paul, and he adapts his positions when someone presents a better NAP or private property rights related argument than what he previously believed.  But he says that neoconservative, liberal, communist, and centrist do not base their theories on these things at all, and the views that are most dear to them are anti-liberty, and so they do not support liberty in any sense.  RPL also insists that the fact that he does not have a perfect grasp of liberty does not in any way change the fact that he can spot neoconservative, liberal, communist, and centrist as being anti-liberty right off the bat.

Neoconservative responds by saying that non-aggression and private property rights are "impractical when taken to their logical conclusions" but continues to insist that he supports liberty because he supports liberating people around the world, even though that means borderline fascism for Americans (he doesn't admit this part of it, naturally.)  Centrist says that he's right in the middle of the political spectrum and that he gets along well with neoconservative, liberal, and communist, and so he wonders why RPL does not get along with anyone else.  Communist says that he's even more extreme than the others but that he can still get along with his fellow statist "liberty lovers" so why can't RPL just admit that everyone has a different perspective on liberty?  Why is he so intolerant?

RPL gets frustrated at the sheer idiocy of his opponents, and so he insults them, realizing that they are dumb as rocks and unwilling to logically define their terms.  All four of the others blame RPL for being "divisive."  RPL just facepalms and walks away frustrated with these four who don't understand the definitions of basic terms, and thus pretending to agree with RPL's general propositions even though he knows they do not in fact do so.

----------


## acptulsa

> RPL gets frustrated at the sheer idiocy of his opponents, and so he insults them, realizing that they are dumb as rocks and unwilling to logically define their terms.  All four of the others blame RPL for being "divisive."  RPL just facepalms and walks away frustrated with these four who don't understand the definitions of basic terms, and thus pretending to agree with RPL's general propositions even though he knows they do not in fact do so.


So _that's_ who taught you how to win friends and influence people!

And what did we learn from this experience concerning trusting crappy teachers?

----------


## James Madison

Wall of text, dude. Just tell us what we need to know.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are the one who made the proposition. Are you going to name whom you are accusing? Or are you recanting? Accused people should have the right to face their accusers.


I believe that you think the Potter has no hands.  Am I correct?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How many here believe that the Potter has no hands?  Several.


Why are you so unable to reconcile full and total predestination, with complete and utter free will?  They all meet together at the end of time, do they not?  Why can you not fathom that they meet together also in God, who is outside of time altogether?

----------


## acptulsa

> Why are you so unable to reconcile full and total predestination, with complete and utter free will?  They all meet together at the end of time, do they not?  Why can you not fathom that they meet together also in God, who is outside of time altogether?


He's been too busy patting himself on the back to give God an ounce of credit for some time now.

Can God solve a logical paradox that Sola can't solve?  No.  Can God create another human who could have a point besides Sola?  No.  Could God save an Arminian if He really wanted to?  No.

Sola ties God's hands a thousand ways and each time he says he does it because God's hands can't be tied.  God can not only run the universe, He can run the universe using a logic system so childishly simple even Sola can understand it--and He must.

----------


## pcosmar

> Why are you so unable to reconcile full and total predestination, with complete and utter free will?  They all meet together at the end of time, do they not?  Why can you not fathom that they meet together also in God, who is outside of time altogether?


I blame it on Babel.

----------


## acptulsa

> I blame it on Babel.


I blame it on babble.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So....no answer to the question.
> 
> 
> Acptulsa, I really would suggest trying to have a teachable spirit.  Your pride and smart remarks are keeping you in darkness.


But why should he have a king over him between God, and why should that king be you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why are you so unable to reconcile full and total predestination, with complete and utter free will?  They all meet together at the end of time, do they not?  Why can you not fathom that they meet together also in God, who is outside of time altogether?


Any rational person sees that you cannot logically reconcile the two.  One cancels out the other.  It's not Biblical.   The Scripture says God has declared the end from the beginning.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Any rational person sees that you cannot logically reconcile the two.  One cancels out the other.  It's not Biblical.   The Scripture says God has declared the end from the beginning.


By whose reason, and why?

ETA Why does "One cancels out the other. "

----------


## acptulsa

> Any rational person sees that you cannot logically reconcile the two.


No, no, no, no, NO!

Any rational person can see that _you_ cannot reconcile the two.  Any _rational_ person can also see that _you are not God._

God can stop the sun in the sky without the continents toppling over each other and mountains flying off into space.  And _you_ think _you_ can see _any_ logic that _God_ can see.  Yet you aren't indulging in the sin of pride, and you aren't bearing false witness, and you aren't arrogant, and you have the right, despite your Master asking you to be a _balm_ and _comfort_ to His other children, to run around saying, 'Psst!  If you don't do this stuff you can't even understand and which makes no sense I can personally guarantee you an eternity in Hell!'

Do _you_ say to your Maker, 'What are you making?'  Do you say to your Maker, 'My hands are as good as Yours'?  Do you say, 'Lord, my _logic_ is as good as Yours'?

God understands whole brands of logic that your pea brain couldn't understand if St. Peter made Saturday morning cartoons out of them just for you.  Stuff _that_ in your 'teachable spirit' and smoke it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, no, no, no, NO!
> 
> Any rational person can see that _you_ cannot reconcile the two.  Any _rational_ person can also see that _you are not God._
> 
> God can stop the sun in the sky without the continents toppling over each other and mountains flying off into space.  And _you_ think _you_ can see _any_ logic that _God_ can see.  Yet you aren't indulging in the sin of pride, and you aren't bearing false witness, and you aren't arrogant, and you have the right, despite your Master asking you to be a _balm_ and _comfort_ to His other children, to run around saying, 'Psst!  If you don't do this stuff you can't even understand and which makes no sense I can personally guarantee you an eternity in Hell!'
> 
> God understands whole brands of logic that your pea brain couldn't understand if St. Peter made Saturday morning cartoons out of them just for you.  Stuff _that_ in your 'teachable spirit' and smoke it.



Well, that is incorrect as well.  There is no "higher logic", or different kind of logic that God uses.   God and man use the same logic.  Logic is God thinking.  Man is logical if he thinks how God thinks.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> By whose reason, and why?
> 
> ETA Why does "One cancels out the other. "


The Bible says that God has predestined history.  That cancels out the free will of man.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The Bible says that God has predestined history.  That cancels out the free will of man.


why does a predestined history cancel out the free will of man?

Is it because the predestination _HAD_ to have happened _before_ history had totally played out?  In that sequential order?

----------


## acptulsa

> Well, that is incorrect as well.  There is no "higher logic", or different kind of logic that God uses.   God and man use the same logic.  Logic is God thinking.  Man is logical if he thinks how God thinks.


Suppose it is.

God knows how the universe works.  He made it.  Every nut and bolt is His.

Now tell me again how your logic can be just as sound as the logic of a Being who is not only a whole lot smarter than you, but who can _personally account for every variable._

And do it without being a boastful, proud heretic.  I dare you.

You and God use the same logic.  Fine.  Tell me how He stopped the sun in the sky.  And don't just say, 'He stopped it,' either.  You're running around saying who is and who isn't going to Hell.  So, you use God's logic and make God's decisions.  Fine.  Tell us the _nuts and bolts_ of how God stopped the sun in the sky.




> Man is logical if he thinks how God thinks.


And do you, Sola_Fide, think how God thinks?

----------


## RJB

> On another forum, a Ron Paulian libertarian, let's name him RPL (For "Ron Paulian Libertarian") was having an online debate with neoconservative (who holds to neocon political views), liberal (who holds to liberal political views), communist (who holds to communist political views), and centrist (you get the idea).


I know you like to see things in boxes, but look at all the RPLs on this forum.  Can you put them in the same box as this one in your story-- that I didn't bother to read past the 1st paragraph?  Of course not.  Does denying the doctrine of Faith Alone (Not found in the bible BTW) mean one doesn't believe in Salvation through Grace?  Of course not.  The world is not as you've been conditioned to see it.  If you don't realize this, you will continue to be no different than the OTCers.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Suppose it is.
> 
> God knows how the universe works.  He made it.  Every nut and bolt is His.
> 
> Now tell me again how your logic can be just as sound as the logic of a Being who is not only a whole lot smarter than you, but who can _personally account for every variable._
> 
> And do it without being a boastful, proud heretic.  I dare you.



There you again with your post that does not relate to anything that we are talking about, and your snippy last line you put in every post as some kind of witty gotcha zinger.

You didn't know the difference between an Armenian and an Arminian.  And obviously right now you are showing that you haven't reflected on the nature of thought in the context of Christian metaphysics.

So my question is:  why are you acting so arrogant? Why are you inserting yourself into conversations you know nothing about?   I know nothing about bitcoin.  I see people talking about it and all I do is watch.  I have nothing to add to the conversation at all.  I'm clueless.   Why don't you do that too?

----------


## acptulsa

> There you again with your post that does not relate to anything that we are talking about, and your snippy last line you put in every post as some kind of witty gotcha zinger.
> 
> You didn't know the difference between an Armenian and an Arminian.  And obviously right now you are showing that you haven't reflected on the nature of thought in the context of Christian metaphysics.
> 
> So my question is:  why are you acting so arrogant? Why are you inserting yourself into conversations you know nothing about?   I know nothing about bitcoin.  I see people talking about it and all I do is watch.  I have nothing to add to the conversation at all.  I'm clueless.   Why don't you do that too?


It isn't your turn to ask a question yet.

Do you, Sola_Fide, think as God thinks?

----------


## HVACTech

> Suppose it is.
> 
> God knows how the universe works.  He made it.  Every nut and bolt is His.
> 
> Now tell me again how your logic can be just as sound as the logic of a Being who is not only a whole lot smarter than you, but who can _personally account for every variable._
> 
> And do it without being a boastful, proud heretic.  I dare you.
> 
> You and God use the same logic.  Fine.  Tell me how He stopped the sun in the sky.  And don't just say, 'He stopped it,' either.  You're running around saying who is and who isn't going to Hell.  So, you use God's logic and make God's decisions.  Fine.  Tell us the _nuts and bolts_ of how God stopped the sun in the sky.
> ...


 "predestined history"
say it three times, click your heels,...
and it will all make sense!

----------


## RJB

> You didn't know the difference between an Armenian and an Arminian.  And obviously right now you are showing that you haven't reflected on the nature of thought in the context of Christian metaphysics.


I think he knows the difference between an ethnicity and a religious belief, but I wouldn't put my money on Acptulsa in a spelling bee.

----------


## William Tell

This thread made me think of the  book of  Job, I don't know why....

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> why does a predestined history cancel out the free will of man?
> 
> Is it because the predestination _HAD_ to have happened _before_ history had totally played out?  In that sequential order?


is it because the Selection has to happen in sequence?

Would it throw your whole universe out of shape if God sat down long after the heat death of the universe and decided whom to predestinate?

You were chosen before you were born, to become a Soldier of God.  Your name was written into the book of life from before the universe was even created.

God sat down, long after the universe was created, had set it's course, and proceeded along it's own axis until the final, physical, heat death of the universe.  He looks back, slowly, and one by one He counts every last soul, and the ones He likes, He writes into the Book of Life.  The actual decision to save your soul was made long after your body is ashes and interstellar dust.

----------


## purplechoe

I've seen Sola contradict himself in the same thread before. I don't understand why you people even bother suffering trying to use logic with him. One would think that he was performing some kind of scholastic experiment on you guys and girls, but I've come to a conclusion that he's not intelligent enough for that...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've seen Sola contradict himself in the same thread before. I don't understand why you people even bother suffering trying to use logic with him. One would think that he was performing some kind of scholastic experiment on you guys and girls, but I've come to a conclusion that he's not intelligent enough for that...


I'm sure I have.  But most of the time when someone says "ohhhh you just contradicted yourself SF", they usually don't understand enough to make that assertion.  It is very clear that most posters here have never heard the gospel of grace or a consistent Christian philosophy.   It is going to be very confusing and VERY off putting to these people.

----------


## acptulsa

> I think he knows the difference between an ethnicity and a religious belief, but I wouldn't put my money on Acptulsa in a spelling bee.


You're wise beyond your yeers.




> I've seen Sola contradict himself in the same thread before. I don't understand why you people even bother suffering trying to use logic with him. One would think that he was performing some kind of scholastic experiment on you guys and girls, but I've come to a conclusion that he's not intelligent enough for that...


Maybe it's God doing the experiment.  _He's_ smart enough.

Well, my course of action is clear.  In the medium term, more the troll hounds my RPF bretheren, the more I bug him to answer that question.

In the short term, I sleep before my speling gets wurse.




> I'm sure I have.  But most of the time when someone says "ohhhh you just contradicted yourself SF", they usually don't understand enough to make that assertion.  It is very clear that most posters here have never heard the gospel of grace or a consistent Christian philosophy.   It is going to be very confusing and VERY off putting to these people.


Consistent is just another word for stuck in the mud.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Any rational person sees that you cannot logically reconcile the two.  One cancels out the other.  It's not Biblical.   The Scripture says God has declared the end from the beginning.


Had Gunny said "Real choice" instead of free will I may have agreed with him.  But "free will" implies that man's choices are, well, free.  This is not Biblical.  Man chooses according to his nature.

----------


## William Tell

> Had Gunny said "Real choice" instead of free will I may have agreed with him.  But "free will" implies that man's choices are, well, free.  This is not Biblical.  Man chooses according to his nature.


Men choose different things.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So _that's_ who taught you how to win friends and influence people!
> 
> And what did we learn from this experience concerning trusting crappy teachers?


RPL isn't a real person.  It was an analogy.  But then, you'd probably sympathize with neoconservative, communist, liberal, and centrist as well...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Had Gunny said "Real choice" instead of free will I may have agreed with him.  But "free will" implies that man's choices are, well, free.  This is not Biblical.  Man chooses according to his nature.


Not only that, God has predestined man's choices.

----------


## acptulsa

> Had Gunny said "Real choice" instead of free will I may have agreed with him.  But "free will" implies that man's choices are, well, free.  This is not Biblical.  Man chooses according to his nature.


This whole site is dedicated to people choosing to be free.

None of us can be as free as S_F, of course, because we haven't got his mental advantages.  But I feel sure that I could make at least as strong a bid at free action as, say, my tomcat.




> Not only that, God has predestined man's choices.


See?  You saw Him use my fingers to blindside you with a brand of logic you never even dreamed about, yet you ask if I believe God has hands.

Still claiming you think as God thinks?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Had Gunny said "Real choice" instead of free will I may have agreed with him.  But "free will" implies that man's choices are, well, free.  This is not Biblical.  Man chooses according to his nature.


What is the difference between "Real Choice" and "free will" is it that some men have laid baggage on one over the other?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This whole site is dedicated to people choosing to be free.
> 
> None of us can be as free as S_F, of course, because we haven't got his mental advantages.  But I feel sure that I could make at least as strong a bid at free action as, say, my tomcat.


You are a slave.  Only the Son can make a person free, and if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You are a slave.  Only the Son can make a person free, and if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed.


You imply that he is without Christ and a slave to sin, without premises or argument.  You just state it as though we should take you on authority of God.  Why do you want to be the king between us and God?

----------


## William Tell

> RPL isn't a real person.  It was an analogy.  But then, you'd probably sympathize with neoconservative, communist, liberal, and centrist as well...


This attitude is the reason so few liberty minded people can win converts, same goes for a lot of Reformed Christians. It comes of as arrogance and name calling to many. How you act, reflects upon how people will view your beliefs.

----------


## acptulsa

> You are a slave.  Only the Son can make a person free, and if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed.


But that's not the part that bothers you.  The part that bothers you is, if the Son makes me free, there's not a single thing you can do about it.

So, do you think as God thinks or don't you?

----------


## RJB

> You imply that he is without Christ and a slave to sin, without premises or argument.  You just state it as though we should take you on authority of God.  Why do you want to be the king between us and God?


It's the way he thinks.  He's been conditioned with certain false formulas. One of them is, in his mind, denial of Faith Alone means the denial of the Sacrifice of Christ.    Discussion and debate are pointless.  It's the way he is.

----------


## pcosmar

> You are a slave.  Only the Son can make a person free, and if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed.


But you have no choice in the matter,, either way. and you will never be free because you are a puppet on a string and have no free will.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not only that, God has predestined man's choices.


Agreed.  But that doesn't mean the choices are not real.






> What is the difference between "Real Choice" and "free will" is it that some men have laid baggage on one over the other?


The difference is that the term "free" will implies that the person in question can make any choice they want, rather than making choices according to their nature.




> This attitude is the reason so few liberty minded people can win converts, same goes for a lot of Reformed Christians. It comes of as arrogance and name calling to many. How you act, reflects upon how people will view your beliefs.


Yeah, I'm sure people who tolerated slave owners in 1850 said the same thing (referring to statism here).  Meh.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But you have no choice in the matter,, either way. and you will never be free because you are a puppet on a string and have no free will.


Sola would never say that you will never be free in the Son.  Sola does not claim to know who is elect and who is not.  This strawman is really annoying because its something that gets used against all Reformed Christians at some point or another, and its silly.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't know how you define "active reprobation" so I'm not sure how that qualifies.


It means God is wrathful toward those He chooses not to save, but He's never _actively_ wrathful.

Which I think settles the question of whether S_F...




> NO ONE CARES ABOUT HOW YOUR FEELINGS ARE HURT BECAUSE YOU THINK OTHERS AREN'T NICE.  PUT YOUR BIG GIRL PANTIES ON AND DEBATE THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF MAKING YOUR POSTS ABOUT PERSONAL SQUABBLES.


...thinks as God does.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The difference is that the term "free" will implies that the person in question can make any choice they want, rather than making choices according to their nature.


And if it is God's will to germinate into eternity those seeds whose souls rise above their own base natures, thereby selecting those seeds which already have life in them, in order to predestinate them into and according to the will of God?  Those who are chosen by God, would have chosen God ultimately, so He predestined their life into an organic symphony of free will and predestination, to arrive at the perfect form of art that is the creation of your eternal soul.

Down here on Earth, you see, we are still just making the DNA for our real self.  Here is the seed planted into the earth.  It will grow or it will not.  It will grow into wheat or it will grow into tares.  The ones who have grown into wheat, are marked by their names on the seeds before they were even planted. This 'plant' that emerges from the seed becomes the DNA of our eternal bodies as we grow forward into the eternal realm, that is, the Kingdom of Heaven.

----------


## William Tell

> Yeah, I'm sure people who tolerated slave owners in 1850 said the same thing (referring to statism here).  Meh.


Oh come on man!  Do you want to win people over to the truth as you see it, or not?

----------


## pcosmar

> Sola would never say that you will never be free in the Son.  Sola does not claim to know who is elect and who is not.  This strawman is really annoying because its something that gets used against all Reformed Christians at some point or another, and its silly.


Sola denies Free Will. It is a Cornerstone issue. There is either Free Will or there is not.

I believe that there is,,and am convinced that Free Will is the whole purpose of this creation. 

I believe that God desires a people that will love and serve him,, Not because they are made to,, but because they choose to.
So yes,, it is a cornerstone issue.

With no Free Will we are  not free. We are not free to worship. Without Free Will,, we are made to Sin or we are made to worship.
either, We are made to,, or we are free to. There is no other middle ground.

----------


## Crashland

> And if it is God's will to germinate into eternity those seeds whose souls rise above their own base natures, thereby selecting those seeds which already have life in them, in order to predestinate them into and according to the will of God?  Those who are chosen by God, would have chosen God ultimately, so He predestined their life into an organic symphony of free will and predestination, to arrive at the perfect form of art that is the creation of your eternal soul.


If God only chooses those who would have chosen him ultimately anyway, are people _really_ chosen by God?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If God only chooses those who would have chosen him ultimately anyway, are people _really_ chosen by God?


Of course.  Your observation likewise requires the constraint of *time*, but on 'the opposite end' as it were. * Time is fluid in the middle*, and God plucks on it like a string.

ETA: what I mean is that God has developed the Creation such that predestination and free will meet together like a dance.  Or say a spontaneous organic flash mob as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Crashland

> Of course.  Your observation likewise requires the constraint of *time*, but on 'the opposite end' as it were. * Time is fluid in the middle*, and God plucks on it like a string.
> 
> ETA: what I mean is that God has developed the Creation such that predestination and free will meet together like a dance.  Or say a spontaneous organic flash mob as inspired by the Holy Spirit.


I don't see how predestination and free will can be logically compatible. What would be possible, is for both of them to *seem* to exist. And if one of them is an illusion I bet I know which one. If free will is an illusion though, that does not make it any less real to *us*, nor would it be of any meaning for us to act any differently if we knew that it was an illusion.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't see how predestination and free will can be logically compatible. What would be possible, is for both of them to *seem* to exist. And if one of them is an illusion I bet I know which one. If free will is an illusion though, that does not make it any less real to *us*, nor would it be of any meaning for us to act any differently if we knew that it was an illusion.


They are only irreconcilable if one is operating _within_ the constraints of time.  God does not.  Time is adjusted in the middle until free will and predestination meet.  In a kind of organic symphonic dance as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

----------


## Crashland

> They are only irreconcilable if one is operating _within_ the constraints of time.  God does not.  Time is adjusted in the middle until free will and predestination meet.  In a kind of organic symphonic dance as inspired by the Holy Spirit.


On the contrary, they are especially irreconcilable if one is operating outside the constraints of time. The concept of predestination requires a framework that is outside time. The persons that are the objects of the predestination can only have free will from the perspective of their position *in* time.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> On the contrary, they are especially irreconcilable if one is operating outside the constraints of time. The concept of predestination requires a framework that is outside time. The persons that are the objects of the predestination can only have free will from the perspective of their position *in* time.


_Why_ would the operation of free will require that God be constrained within time?

----------


## Crashland

> _Why_ would the operation of free will require that God be constrained within time?


The operation of free will for humans wouldn't require God to be constrained by time, but it would require God to not do that predestination thing (which actually, I would argue, might be impossible for him not to do)
God could have true free will though because he is not the object of a greater being's predestination.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The operation of free will for humans wouldn't require God to be constrained by time, but it would require God to not do that predestination thing (which actually, I would argue, might be impossible for him not to do)
> God could have true free will though because he is not the object of a greater being's predestination.


I am not grasping _why_ the existence of predestination invalidates free will.  Nobody has made an argument to support it, people are just saying "it is so" like that was it.  _What_ operation of predestination prevents the operation of free will, and _why_ does that operation do so?

If you can, please provide premises, a logical argument, and a formal conclusion, because I am simply not following you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

continuing a different conversation...




> why does a predestined history cancel out the free will of man?
> 
> Is it because the predestination _HAD_ to have happened _before_ history had totally played out?  In that sequential order?





> is it because the Selection has to happen in sequence?
> 
> Would it throw your whole universe out of shape if God sat down long after the heat death of the universe and decided whom to predestinate?
> 
> You were chosen before you were born, to become a Soldier of God.  Your name was written into the book of life from before the universe was even created.
> 
> God sat down, long after the universe was created, had set it's course, and proceeded along it's own axis until the final, physical, heat death of the universe.  He looks back, slowly, and one by one He counts every last soul, and the ones He likes, He writes into the Book of Life.  The actual decision to save your soul was made long after your body is ashes and interstellar dust.


Your view of "predestination ONLY and everyone else goes to hell" appears to be an effect of your constraint of the operation of God being within the burden of time.  It is an easy and easily rectified error, if God should reveal it to you.

God remains as always, outside of time.  our cusps of decision-making are basically irrelevant from the Eternal perspective, when everywhen, really, is all equally "now."  Before and then, and after when God sees them all at once, and speaks to them all, at once.  He is utterly outside of time.  A predestination from the dawn of the universe, are all open to the seed of souls which grow up into it like a tree, every cell, arriving by free will.  Named in God from before it was born.

From the actual, eternal perspective, there is no conflict between total predestination, and complete free will.  An unwillingness to reconcile them proposes a blindness in this perspective, so I reason that while you may yet be a Child of God, He has apparently not chosen to develop in you the eternal perspective.

From there, I would then choose to examine your fruits, to determine whom you serve.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Do you think the Potter has hands?  Or do you think the Potter has no hands?


That you think your twisted interpretation is the only valid one is the height of arrogance. More than anything, it makes no sense. The very fact that these verses warn people not to quarrel with God's will and rather submit to Him implies that men have a will that _can_ choose to obey Him or not. God does not have to be an enslaving Tyrant to see His will done. He is all powerful, meaning He is powerful enough to accomplish His will and still not violate the individual wills gifted to men. If you can't understand these truths well, "I really would suggest trying to have a teachable spirit.  Your pride and smart remarks are keeping you in darkness."

----------


## Crashland

> I am not grasping _why_ the existence of predestination invalidates free will.  Nobody has made an argument to support it, people are just saying "it is so" like that was it.  _What_ operation of predestination prevents the operation of free will, and _why_ does that operation do so?
> 
> If you can, please provide premises, a logical argument, and a formal conclusion, because I am simply not following you.


Let's see...maybe this.

P1 - Premise: God, being outside time, has an unchanging knowledge of every event that has occurred, is occurring, and will occur in our world (this is necessary for predestination). 
P2 - Premise: Choices that can only have one outcome are not free choices.
1 - If there exists a choice that had an outcome that was different from what God knows, that would contradict (P1).
2 - From (1), there does not exist a choice that has an outcome that is different from what God knows.
3 - From (2), all choices can only have one outcome.
Conclusion - From (P2) and (3), all choices are not free choices.

----------


## GunnyFreedom



----------


## Crashland

From a secular perspective, I think the concept of free will is similarly jeopardized, but in that case it would be caused perhaps by "inevitability" rather than "predestination", with the driving force being something boring like physics. But from the secular perspective as well, it is not functionally meaningful or beneficial for us to act any differently even if we think our free will is an illusion. In fact it would probably be harmful to allow that to influence our decisions because it could be used to absolve responsibility.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Let's see...maybe this.
> 
> P1 - Premise: God, being outside time, has an unchanging knowledge of every event that has occurred, is occurring, and will occur in our world (this is necessary for predestination).


Why is this knowledge _unchanging?_  Why is it not actively operating and being manipulated by God on a 'live' basis?  Do you not see that prophecy and fulfillment is the evidence of God manipulating reality in live-action?

God is not bound by sequential action.  _Neither is He bound by the establishment of the past._  This I think is the key to what you are not seeing.  The current 'now' could shift 180° in a blink.  In the next minute, you could have been born wealthy.

The past, the present, and the future are all the same "now" to God, and He operates by manipulating the position of the events in the timeline as He pleases.

This means that reality changes in the middle of the "now," even from our perspective, even if we cannot see it.  Got manipulates the timeline like a musician operates a guitar string, to produce music.

The way to eternity is where the two meet together in God's will.  Free will and predestination operate like two partners in a dance, with predestination "taking the lead," as it were, as this is the calling of God. 




> P2 - Premise: Choices that can only have one outcome are not free choices.


I dispute that the choices of the chosen can have only one outcome.  Had they not been drawn to life, then they would have died.

ETA: and also not been chosen.  but they were chosen because they had been drawn to life.

ETAA: "*whom He foreknew* He also predestined..."
^^ _That_ is God's sequence.




> 1 - If there exists a choice that had an outcome that was different from what God knows, that would contradict (P1).
> 2 - From (1), there does not exist a choice that has an outcome that is different from what God knows.
> 3 - From (2), all choices can only have one outcome.
> Conclusion - From (P2) and (3), all choices are not free choices.


And I never claimed that _all_ choices were free choices.  If we are in prison, then we don't have a choice of what's for dinner, we either eat or we don't.  That does not comply with your definition of "free choice" here, so any argument requiring "all" choices to be of free will is not my argument, and you are arguing against a point that I have never made.

----------


## Crashland

> Why is this knowledge _unchanging?_  Why is it not actively operating and being manipulated by God on a 'live' basis?  Do you not see that prophecy and fulfillment is the evidence of God manipulating reality in live-action?
> 
> God is not bound by sequential action.  _Neither is He bound by the establishment of the past._  This I think is the key to what you are not seeing.  The current 'now' could shift 180° in a blink.  In the next minute, you could have been born wealthy.
> 
> The past, the present, and the future are all the same "now" to God, and He operates by manipulating the position of the events in the timeline as He pleases.
> 
> This means that reality changes in the middle of the "now," even from our perspective, even if we cannot see it.  Got manipulates the timeline like a musician operates a guitar string, to produce music.
> 
> The way to eternity is where the two meet together in God's will.  Free will and predestination operate like two partners in a dance, with predestination "taking the lead," as it were, as this is the calling of God.


"Unchanging" is the best way I know to describe a perfect knowledge that is outside time. To me, your word picture sounds less like the idea of playing music, and more like the idea that God erases and rewrites the entire script with us being completely unaware of it. While I am sure that could happen, even so, I'm not sure how that really changes anything. Do you think God changes the timeline in _reaction_ to our choices?





> I dispute that the choices of the chosen can have only one outcome.  Had they not been drawn to life, then they would have died.


Yes - dying would be the second outcome. But that is impossible because they were chosen.

----------


## Crashland

> ETAA: "*whom He foreknew* He also predestined..."
> ^^ _That_ is God's sequence.


I thought God could not have a sequence. Wouldn't that be imposing a time constraint? I would interpret that verse as having simultaneous foreknowledge and predestination.





> And I never claimed that _all_ choices were free choices.  If we are in prison, then we don't have a choice of what's for dinner, we either eat or we don't.  That does not comply with your definition of "free choice" here, so any argument requiring "all" choices to be of free will is not my argument, and you are arguing against a point that I have never made.


No I didn't mean to imply you claim all choices *are* free. My conclusion, based on the premise of predestination (which you are challenging, granted), was that "all choices are *not* free choices", to illustrate how predestination contradicts free choice.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> "Unchanging" is the best way I know to describe a perfect knowledge that is outside time. To me, your word picture sounds less like the idea of playing music, and more like the idea that God erases and rewrites the entire script with us being completely unaware of it. While I am sure that could happen, even so, I'm not sure how that really changes anything. Do you think God changes the timeline in _reaction_ to our choices?


Kind of.  But more like a dance that _He_ leads.  Predestination '_leads_' or calls, and free will hears and responds, and they operate together towards the accomplishment of God's perfect will. It's more that those who are called and respond move in the timeline *in reaction to His choices*, but yes, He reacts to us also.




> *Romans 8:28*
> New American Standard Bible (NASB)
> *28* And we know that *[a]*God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who arecalled according to _His_ purpose.
> 
> *Footnotes:*
> 
> Romans 8:28 One early ms reads _all things work together for good_


God actively _moves all things_ like this to assemble the outcome of His will.





> Yes - dying would be the second outcome. But that is impossible because they were chosen.


They were chosen because they rose above their nature and were drawn to life.  God saw all of this at the very end of time, therefore He chose them, each and every one, and wrote their names down into the Book of Life from before the universe was made.

----------


## Crashland

> Kind of.  But more like a dance that _He_ leads.  Predestination '_leads_' or calls, and free will hears and responds, and they operate together towards the accomplishment of God's perfect will. It's more that those who are called and respond move in the timeline *in reaction to His choices*, but yes, He reacts to us also.


I think maybe I would contest that God can actually react or change something in reaction to anything we do, because if he did, that would imply he does not have that total knowledge. This concept you are trying to sell is a real tough one to swallow, for me at least.

I'm done for now, you wore me out lol. Bedtime for me. Thanks for stimulating discussion

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I thought God could not have a sequence. Wouldn't that be imposing a time constraint? I would interpret that verse as having simultaneous foreknowledge and predestination.


That was the sequence God chose to reveal to us that He _chose_ to use on that _one_ issue, being relevant because I believe that one issue central to the debate at hand; _not_ that He was constrained by it, _nor_ that He doesn't operate other sequences on other matters.  




> No I didn't mean to imply you claim all choices *are* free. My conclusion, based on the premise of predestination (which you are challenging, granted), was that "all choices are *not* free choices", to illustrate how predestination contradicts free choice.


OK,

all X are not y-X
therefore a-X is not y-X

but there is a slippery term.

"all"

Do you mean, 

No X is y-X

or do you mean 

Not all X are y-X

not all choices are free choices

or

no choice is a free choice?

----------


## Crashland

> That was the sequence God chose to reveal to us that He _chose_ to use on that _one_ issue, being relevant because I believe that one issue central to the debate at hand; _not_ that He was constrained by it, _nor_ that He doesn't operate other sequences on other matters.  
> 
> 
> 
> OK,
> 
> all X are not y-X
> therefore a-X is not y-X
> 
> ...


The second one "no choice is a free choice".

Or, "all choices are not free choices" would be logically equivalent.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The second one "no choice is a free choice".
> 
> Or, "all choices are not free choices" would be logically equivalent.


Your position is:
all X are _not_ Y
all choices are not free will choice
no choice is a free will choice

My position is:
_not_ all X are Y
not all choices are free will choices
some choices are not free will choices
some choices are free will choices

----------


## robert68

If a person was made, then their mind was made, and they cant even have conscious thought about their maker.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If a person was made, then their mind was made, and they can’t even have conscious thought about their maker.


That doesn't follow at all.

----------


## Theocrat

> This whole site is dedicated to people choosing to be free.
> 
> None of us can be as free as S_F, of course, because we haven't got his mental advantages.  But I feel sure that I could make at least as strong a bid at free action as, say, my tomcat.





> What is the difference between "Real Choice" and "free will" is it that some men have laid baggage on one over the other?


Let me start off by saying that I agree 100% with Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic on the nature of "Free Will." However, I don't think that they have explained it as well as they should to you.

Really, the debate over "free will" has the prerequisite of another doctrine--total depravity. If men are totally depraved, by which is meant they are dead in their sins and transgressions and utterly incapable of pleasing God *on their own*, then the denial of "free will" can actually make some sense. I won't spend time on the passages that teach "total depravity" (I'm sure my brothers Sola and FF will oblige you all on those), but I just wanted to bring that up because I want you to understand that that doctrine is the common denominator when we Calvinists are rejecting "free will."

As Calvinists, we recognize that there is a difference between "the freedom of choice" and "the freedom of volition." People make choices all of the time: they choose what groceries to buy, what clothes to wear, what school to attend, whom they want to marry, _ad infinitum_. However, those choices are *never made in isolation*; they are based on preferences, tastes, etc. That is where volition (or will) comes into play. The will is what inclines us to make a decision, given a set of choices or options.

As an example, think of a lion feeding. If you were to place a bowl of antelope meat and a bowl of Romanian lettuce before him, which of the two would he choose? More than likely, the lion would choose the bowl of antelope meat, and he would do that every single time the two were offered to him. Now, recognize that the lion made a choice. But ask yourselves, "What was the cause of his choice?" The thing which inclined the lion to eat the bowl of meat is due to the fact of the lion's nature, namely, that he is a carnivore. In order for the lion to choose the bowl of Romanian lettuce over the bowl of antelope meat, the lion's nature, as a carnivore, would have to be drastically or miraculously changed. (Yes, I know there are a few lions who actually eat nothing but vegetation, and as rare as that is, let's just stick to the example.)

So it is with human nature. Because human beings are inclined to make choices that please themselves before pleasing God (due to our sinful natures), we do not have a "free will." In fact, such choices are evidence that we are in bondage to sin, and that is why we need Jesus, in the first place. He saves us from that bondage by causing us to choose Him, follow Him, and seek after those things which please His Father, in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is freedom to do that which God is pleased with, and Christ was the epitome of that. He is our "William Wallace," our "Braveheart," if I can put it like that. Though humans have wills, and we make choices, that doesn't make either of those faculties "free" if they are only doing that which goes against the Author of liberty Himself.

So, all Calvinists are saying is that our natures must change (be "born again") so that our volition causes us to make choices that are in the spirit of true freedom, which is living unto God our Creator and Redeemer. The Potter's hands must reshape our souls into the image of His Son. I hope that makes some sense.

----------


## moostraks

> I believe that you think the Potter has no hands.  Am I correct?


 you don't speak for the Potter even though you fancy yourself _the_ authority on the matter. The nifty thing about your manner of conception is who are you to argue I am wrong if my interpretation of the same verses is different than yours? It is you who has made all arguments subjective to personal interpretation. You think I am an idiot and I see you not addressing verses that contradict your particular positions and that is where the discussion meets a roadblock.

----------


## pcosmar

> Let me start off by saying that I agree 100% with Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic on the nature of "Free Will." However, I don't think that they have explained it as well as they should to you.


I actually don't,,

I am convinced that the concept of "predestination" is misunderstood.. Perhaps mistranslated.. and perhaps there is not a word in any human tongue that expressed it accurately.

I can only go by what has been presented to me,, and I reject that outright.
Without Free Will, Adam had no choice but to sin.. because he was Predestined to sin. He was created to sin. He had no choice in the matter,, and the rest was just a charade. Predestination (as presented) leaves no possibility that Adam could have rebuked the Serpent and not sinned. 
It was a foregone conclusion before he was created.

Sorry..but I cannot accept this,, nor even entertain the possibility.. That would make God the evil and Satan a pawn (he had no choice either)

No,, I ain't buying that.

----------


## moostraks

> No, no, no, no, NO!
> 
> Any rational person can see that _you_ cannot reconcile the two.  Any _rational_ person can also see that _you are not God._
> 
> God can stop the sun in the sky without the continents toppling over each other and mountains flying off into space.  And _you_ think _you_ can see _any_ logic that _God_ can see.  Yet you aren't indulging in the sin of pride, and you aren't bearing false witness, and you aren't arrogant, and you have the right, despite your Master asking you to be a _balm_ and _comfort_ to His other children, to run around saying, 'Psst!  If you don't do this stuff you can't even understand and which makes no sense I can personally guarantee you an eternity in Hell!'
> 
> Do _you_ say to your Maker, 'What are you making?'  Do you say to your Maker, 'My hands are as good as Yours'?  Do you say, 'Lord, my _logic_ is as good as Yours'?
> 
> God understands whole brands of logic that your pea brain couldn't understand if St. Peter made Saturday morning cartoons out of them just for you.  Stuff _that_ in your 'teachable spirit' and smoke it.


 this...




> They are only irreconcilable if one is operating _within_ the constraints of time.  God does not.  Time is adjusted in the middle until free will and predestination meet.  In a kind of organic symphonic dance as inspired by the Holy Spirit.


and this...

----------


## Theocrat

> I actually don't,,
> 
> I am convinced that the concept of "predestination" is misunderstood.. Perhaps mistranslated.. and perhaps there is not a word in any human tongue that expressed it accurately.
> 
> I can only go by what has been presented to me,, and I reject that outright.
> Without Free Will, Adam had no choice but to sin.. because he was Predestined to sin. He was created to sin. He had no choice in the matter,, and the rest was just a charade. Predestination (as presented) leaves no possibility that Adam could have rebuked the Serpent and not sinned. 
> It was a foregone conclusion before he was created.
> 
> Sorry..but I cannot accept this,, nor even entertain the possibility.. That would make God the evil and Satan a pawn (he had no choice either)
> ...


Predestination reflects God's nature, my brother. Predestination assumes that God had a plan, a reason, for why history is laid out as it is (even if it's unknown to us, as finite human beings). If predestination is not true, then we have to assume that everything in history is unknown to God, which means that He is not in control of events of any kind. Everything is a surprise to Him, in that regard. Thus, God loses His ominscience and omnipotence, which means that He cannot be God.

----------


## robert68

> That doesn't follow at all.


Every thought is only what "the maker" makes it. No thought independent of "the maker."

----------


## Terry1

Just as no one can assume their heavenly glorified body in this life while in a state of flesh and blood--neither can anyone presume upon God that they've already been predestined for glory until after this life.  

Jesus's body was not perfected until the third day upon His resurrection.  If Jesus couldn't be perfected until after His life on earth--then why would anyone presume upon God that they are already chosen, predestined and glorified in this life?  

We are told that as long as we abide in Christ and remain there that we are perfect through Him and if we do not remain in and abide in Christ in this life while in these bodies that we are lost, fall away and back into sin.  Until we have finished our course in this life--been tested through our faith and proven true by overcoming this life--we can not presume upon God that He has already predestined and glorified us.  It's impossible to be glorified in these bodies in this life.  

Being predestined to glory is a future event that does not occur in this life, but we do have assurance that as long as we abide in Christ while in this life--we are the elect and if we stop abiding in Christ in the life--we fall from that same state of elect and the only way back to God then is through repentance.

----------


## acptulsa

> Everything is a surprise to Him, in that regard. Thus, God loses His ominscience and omnipotence, which means that He cannot be God.


I reject this completely.

I don't reject predestination out of hand.  I reject that a lack of it undermines God's sovereignty.  I don't reject that God _can_ intervene.  I reject that God can't choose not to intervene without undermining His sovereignty.

I say God is not a light switch.  But let's suppose He is a light switch.  Is he the one on the left...



...or the one on the right?

I'll give you a hint, Theo.  He's whichever switch He wants to be.  And if He decides to recognize shades of gray like a dimmer switch, even _that_ fails to undermine His sovereignty.

Are omniscience and omnipotence really like muscle?  Does He have to use them or lose them?

----------


## pcosmar

> Predestination reflects God's nature, my brother. Predestination assumes that God had a plan, a reason, for why history is laid out as it is (even if it's unknown to us, as finite human beings). If predestination is not true, then we have to assume that everything in history is unknown to God, which means that He is not in control of events of any kind. Everything is a surprise to Him, in that regard. Thus, God loses His ominscience and omnipotence, which means that He cannot be God.


Oh,, I know He has a plan. And He sees the end from the beginning. But that is quite different from controlling every action within that plan.

This is why Predestination is grossly misunderstood.. It assumes that every action,,down to the smallest detail is controlled. From "let there be Light" to "lights out".
And I simply do not believe that to be so.

It would have been much simpler to create a perfect world with no possibility of sin.. To never have created Satan. A creation where all his little toys did exactly what they were supposed to do.

No,, I do believe He has a plan.. and that is a desire for a people that will Love Him back,, not because they are made to do so,, but because they choose to. 
And I believe that there is a second part of that plan.
It is also a trial for those servants that Rebelled,,and rather than simply destroying them (which he could have certainly done), He is putting their trial on display for all creation. So that All creation will know the total justice in their punishment..

Without Free Will. Without  the honest ability to choose.. that trial would be a sham.

So yes,, I believe there is a plan.. and I am sure he has seen the end of it from the beginning.. 
He knows He will have a people that choose him, and that Satan's guilt will be on display for all creation to see.

----------


## Theocrat

> I reject this completely.
> 
> I don't reject predestination out of hand.  I reject that a lack of it undermines God's sovereignty.  I don't reject that God _can_ intervene.  I reject that God can choose not to intervene without undermining His sovereignty.
> 
> I say God is not a light switch.  But let's suppose He is a light switch.  Is he the one on the left...
> 
> 
> 
> ...or the one on the right?
> ...


All I'm saying is that predestination is essential to Who God is. If you take that away from Him, then you have another god.

In Acts 2:22-24, it reads:




> Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know, *Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God*, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain, *Whom God hath raised up*, having loosed the pains of death because it was not possible that He should be held of it. [emphasis mine]


In that passage, we see an illustration of how God's predestining hand works. He foreknew and predetermined that Jesus would be delivered up to be crucified, so God allowed wicked men to slay Him. In essence, I believe that God was passive, in that regard. However, God then raised His Son up from the dead, overcoming the works of sinful men who thought they could stop Jesus' work of His Father. God was in control of the whole thing; there was not a moment during Christ's ministry nor His Passion that God was shocked or confused about what was going to happen next. He had planned it all, for He is sovereign over all, even wicked men.

The mystery of it all is that when it seems like God is not acting upon His creation, He truly is acting upon it. That's how powerful our God is. So, when you say that God "chooses not to intervene," I think you've already missed the point.

----------


## Theocrat

> Oh,, I know He has a plan. And He sees the end from the beginning. But that is quite different from controlling every action within that plan.
> 
> This is why Predestination is grossly misunderstood.. It assumes that every action,,down to the smallest detail is controlled. From "let there be Light" to "lights out".
> And I simply do not believe that to be so.
> 
> It would have been much simpler to create a perfect world with no possibility of sin.. To never have created Satan. A creation where all his little toys did exactly what they were supposed to do.
> 
> No,, I do believe He has a plan.. and that is a desire for a people that will Love Him back,, not because they are made to do so,, but because they choose to. 
> And I believe that there is a second part of that plan.
> ...


On the subject of "free will," what do you think of my response here?

----------


## pcosmar

> On the subject of "free will," what do you think of my response


My post that you quoted WAS a response to it.

If you want me to be more clear.. then Calvinists are mostly full of $#@!. I reject it as such.

Dude,, I ain't a Calvinist,, nor do I wish to be. I think they are simply wrong.. It is an Error. It is just as much error as thinking Peter was the Rock that the Church is built on.
I reject the idea as such.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Every thought is only what the maker makes it. No thought independent of the maker.


That's right.  There is no thought independent of God.  God is the cause whereby men have thoughts at all.  

But you think you escape determinism with athiesm?  Give me a break!  In materialism, there can be no freedom of the mind because the mind is nothing but random chemical processes being acted on by the blind forces of biology and the universe.  ATHEISM IS BEHAVIORALISM.  There is NO freedom of thought in athiesm.

----------


## Theocrat

> My post that you quoted WAS a response to it.
> 
> If you want me to be more clear.. then Calvinists are mostly full of $#@!. I reject it as such.
> 
> Dude,, I ain't a Calvinist,, nor do I wish to be. I think they are simply wrong.. It is an Error. It is just as much error as thinking Peter was the Rock that the Church is built on.
> I reject the idea as such.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand how your post after it was a rebuttal to any of the actual lines of argument I laid out. You jumped to the issue of predestination, which is something that I did not discuss in my post. I was talking about the difference between "free will" and "free choice." The only thing that you stated was, "Without Free Will, Adam had no choice but to sin.. because he was Predestined to sin." Yet, that was not where I began my explanation of the differences between "free will" and "free choice." So, you haven't addressed those issues in my post, I'm afraid.

----------


## moostraks

> That's right.  There is no thought independent of God.  God is the cause whereby men have thoughts at all.  
> 
> But you think you escape determinism with athiesm?  Give me a break!  In materialism, there can be no freedom of the mind because the mind is nothing but random chemical processes being acted on by the blind forces of biology and the universe.  ATHEISM IS BEHAVIORALISM.  There is NO freedom of thought in athiesm.





> There is a category of philosophers who believe that free will and determinism do not need to be at odds.   They are known as compatibilists.  Thomas Hobbes, the 18th Century author of Leviathan, asserted “that no liberty can be inferred to the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consists in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire or inclination to do.”[7] David Hume agreed. “This hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to everyone who is not a prisoner and in chains.”[8]  Hume and Hobbes were both compatibilists.  The Preface will discuss the ideas of a contemporary well-regarded compatibilist, Daniel C. Dennett, below.
> 
> The somewhat abstract philosophical terms and concepts that we have been following are actually extremely important concerning ethics and the question of responsibility in the present day.  If everything is caused, how can there be standards for behavior?  This is particularly true for the question of personal and legal responsibility.  There are cases of brain damage on record which have changed people’s personalities. Michael Gazzaniga discusses the famous Libet Experiment in the 1980’s. Libet found that the brain carries out its work before one becomes aware of a thought. “…a subject would stare at a clock and at the very moment he made a conscious decision to flick his wrist, Libet discovered his brain was ready before the conscious thought by about 300 milliseconds.[9] There are other experiments which seem to point to reduced culpability in humans, especially in many violent crimes. (Gazzaniga, The Ethical Brain, 2005. Chapter 6.  See Neuroscience.) Yet Gazzaniga believes that neuroscience will not find the brain correlate of responsibility because he believes that this quality is something we ascribe to people, not brains.  He states that responsibility is a social construct that involves humans interacting with each other.  He concludes that the idea of responsibility…”a social construct that exists in the rules of a society, does not exist in the neuronal structures of the brain…”[10]
> 
>  Libet himself believes that the idea of the existence of free will is as good as any denial of it by determinists. Since both theories are speculative, he thinks that until real contradictory evidence appears, we can adopt the concept of free will.  He finds the hard determinism that views humans as machines completely controlled by known physical laws a permissive and not robust concept.[11] Colin McGinn, the philosopher, makes a similar point when he states that the identifying the part of the brain that makes a decision tells us nothing about the concept of freedom.  McGinn maintains that freedom is a conceptual problem, not a neural one.[12]
> 
> Daniel C.Dennett is a well known compatibilist and proponent of compatilibilism in Elbow Room (1984) and Freedom Evolves (2003.)  Dennett’s contribution to the problem of free will and determinism is robust and welcome.  Many secular people have assumed scientific determinism is the correct stance. They accept the as yet unproved concept that we have no volition, and yet they live each day as if we do.  This contradiction can create an uneasy sense of something being not quite correct, not in some sort of balance, even if the feeling is unspoken.  Dennett takes the position that determinism does not mean fatalism. Fatalism is the concept that no matter what one does, both the action and the result are predetermined.  Yet a chosen action can make a difference, as we observe in our everyday living, no matter what the philosophers tell us. 
> 
> Dennett explains that different patterns and complexities are being found in all of Nature now.  The more complex a creature becomes, the more freedom it has.  He states that a bird flying has more freedom than a jellyfish which can only float.  By contrast, humans have evolved into very complex organisms.  Our evolution involves the development of language and culture.  Dennett explains that our freedom is as different from a bird’s as language is different from bird song. To understand how humans have arrived at this stage of evolved freedom, Dennett takes the reader back in time to understand freedom’s “more modest components and predecessors.”[13] It is not necessary to believe our conscious life is not a superimposition on our material bodies, including the brain.  We are evolved creatures who have developed emotions and thought patterns that allow us to make choices and take action on those choices.
> ...


http://atheistscholar.org/Determinism.aspx

----------


## moostraks

> That's right.  There is no thought independent of God.  God is the cause whereby men have thoughts at all.  
> 
> But you think you escape determinism with athiesm?  Give me a break!  In materialism, there can be no freedom of the mind because the mind is nothing but random chemical processes being acted on by the blind forces of biology and the universe.  ATHEISM IS BEHAVIORALISM.  There is NO freedom of thought in athiesm.


Should have included this:



> Before the Preface discusses the contemporary issues involved in discussions of free will and determinism, it is necessary to define a few terms that most scholars are generally agreed on.  These definitions will help to follow the strands of modern philosophic thought that encompass free will and determinism.  Hard determinism maintains that human actions and character are wholly determined by external factors, that humans have no free will or responsibility.  Soft determinism believes that human behavior is wholly determined by causal events but human free will does exist when defined by the capacity to act according to one’s nature shaped by heredity, society, and upbringing.  Free will is a philosophical term for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action among various alternatives.  Acting with free will, on such views, is to satisfy the metaphysical requirements of being responsible for one’s actions.  There are many constraints and resistances outside ourselves, so our success in carrying out our ends seems to reside in our “willing.”[5] Metaphysical libertarians state that determinism is false and only free will exists. They are known as indeterminists. Both libertarians and hard determinists are described as incompatibilists.
> 
> Kant’s separation of the two ways of viewing our nature still seems to operate in our contemporary world.  We have learned about genetic determination, social and environmental factors and the unconscious part of our minds.  We know the large role such factors play in our development as humans. We know that our minds and thoughts, consciousness itself, are functions of our material brain; we understand the mind and the brain are not separate entities. And yet, we unwittingly think of ourselves as free and our choices as self-determined.  We see alternate choices before us. Robert Kane states that we believe we have free will when (a) “it is up to us” when we choose from an array of alternate possibilities and (b) the origins or sources of our choices and actions is in us and not in anything or anyone over which we have no control.[6]  We believe that other people have free will, also, as can be witnessed by our feelings of gratitude, resentment, and so on when we are the recipients of others’ actions.


 http://atheistscholar.org/Determinism.aspx

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm sorry, but I don't understand how your post after it was a rebuttal to any of the actual lines of argument I laid out. You jumped to the issue of predestination, which is something that I did not discuss in my post. I was talking about the difference between "free will" and "free choice." The only thing that you stated was, "Without Free Will, Adam had no choice but to sin.. because he was Predestined to sin." Yet, that was not where I began my explanation of the differences between "free will" and "free choice." So, you haven't addressed those issues in my post, I'm afraid.


Then you have a comprehension problem.

Adam was created by God.
Now either Adam had a choice or he did not have a choice.. Predestination says he did not have a choice (even before sin) He was created to sin. He had to because he did, he did because he had to. It was predestined. It has nothing to do with being "Dead in Sin" because he was just created and sin had not yet happened.
And if Adam had no choice,, No Free Will,, Was predestined to sin,, Then God created him for that purpose.. He was doing Gods Will by sinning..

This is an incredibly stupid doctrine. Self defeating even.
And I reject it outright.

Adam had to have a Free Will to choose.. The autonomy to choose.

And I believe that God knew of this possibility,, knowing the end from the beginning.. allowing  Adam to choose wrongly.
He also had,, as his plan, the provision for redemption. Which has been and continues through history, so that in the End he has a people that Choose Him.

Free Will is a Cornerstone.
Without Free Will we are just puppets on strings.. being tortured for the pleasure of a malevolent being.

I do not accept that.. I reject it in entirety

----------


## Theocrat

> Then you have a comprehension problem.
> 
> Adam was created by God.
> Now either Adam had a choice or he did not have a choice.. Predestination says he did not have a choice (even before sin) He was created to sin. He had to because he did, he did because he had to. It was predestined. It has nothing to do with being "Dead in Sin" because he was just created and sin had not yet happened.
> And if Adam had no choice,, No Free Will,, Was predestined to sin,, Then God created him for that purpose.. He was doing Gods Will by sinning..
> 
> This is an incredibly stupid doctrine. Self defeating even.
> And I reject it outright.
> 
> ...


My brother, your response above proves to me that you, either, did not actually read what I posted, or you did not comprehend what I posted. You keep harping on this issue of whether Adam had choice, but if you had read my post, then you would know that I never denied that all humans make choices. So, you have not rebutted anything that I posted, if that's your argument.

Also, you're conflating "free will" with "free choice," but I distinctly separated the two and explained why they are different ideas altogether (though related to each other). Did you remember my doing that in my post, pcosmar? It seems that you haven't because you're still ranting and raving on about predestination, which I never brought up in my post.

I also sense a lot of emotionalism in your last reply, which seems to me that you're not willing to have a fair and rational discussion about "free will" and "free choice." You've said things like, "Calvinists are full of $#@!," and "This doctrine is stupid," both of which do not assert your point of view, but rather, they attack your opponents personally. So, I guess I'll just have to leave you to your emotions, my brother. But I am not convinced that you have cogently dealt with the issue of "free will," as I have presented. And I do sympathize with your wanting men to take full responsibility for their actions, which is why you defend "free will" so adamantly. But it can be reconciled, and I was trying to do that in the post I keep referring you to.

----------


## Terry1

> My brother, your response above proves to me that you, either, did not actually read what I posted, or you did not comprehend what I posted. You keep harping on this issue of whether Adam had choice, but if you had read my post, then you would know that I never denied that all humans make choices. So, you have not rebutted anything that I posted, if that's your argument.
> 
> Also, you're conflating "free will" with "free choice," but I distinctly separated the two and explained why they are different ideas altogether (though related to each other). Did you remember my doing that in my post, pcosmar? It seems that you haven't because you're still ranting and raving on about predestination, which I never brought up in my post.
> 
> I also sense a lot of emotionalism in your last reply, which seems to me that you're not willing to have a fair and rational discussion about "free will" and "free choice." You've said things like, "Calvinists are full of $#@!," and "This doctrine is stupid," both of which do not assert your point of view, but rather, they attack your opponents personally. So, I guess I'll just have to leave you to your emotions, my brother. But I am not convinced that you have cogently dealt with the issue of "free will," as I have presented. And I do sympathize with your wanting men to take full responsibility for their actions, which is why you defend "free will" so adamantly. But it can be reconciled, and I was trying to do that in the post I keep referring you to.


Theo, how would you define the difference between the "free will" and "free choice"?

----------


## Theocrat

> Theo, how would you define the difference between the "free will" and "free choice"?


I've done that here.

----------


## pcosmar

> And I do sympathize with your wanting men to take full responsibility for their actions, which is why you defend "free will" so adamantly. But it can be reconciled, and I was trying to do that in the post I keep referring you to.


I had read your post.. and saw nothing of the kind in it,, but rather an attempt to support Sola's position,, which he has been pushing ferociously, ,and is a cause of much dissension ..
It was the very purpose if this very thread. And if you agree with him,, then I disagree with you.




> The Bible says that God has predestined history.  That cancels out the free will of man.





> Not only that, God has predestined man's choices.


And I adamantly disagree. It is that simple.



> Sola denies Free Will. It is a Cornerstone issue. There is either Free Will or there is not.
> 
> I believe that there is,,and am convinced that Free Will is the whole purpose of this creation. 
> 
> I believe that God desires a people that will love and serve him,, Not because they are made to,, but because they choose to.
> So yes,, it is a cornerstone issue.
> 
> With no Free Will we are  not free. We are not free to worship. Without Free Will,, we are made to Sin or we are made to worship.
> either, We are made to,, or we are free to. There is no other middle ground.

----------


## Terry1

> I've done that here.


I'm aware of this interpretation, but I don't agree with it.  James tells us here:  *James 1:25 
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.*  

Gods word clearly teaches that we have perfect freedom and liberty do decide in all circumstance that life presents which path we choose to take and whom we choose to follow.  We are the ones who decide our own fate based upon what we willingly--freely choose to believe in and follow.

*Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.*

So if our choices and our free will to choose be our fate, then we are created in perfect freedom to decide whom we shall serve that will inevitably determine our eternal destinies.

For if we are free to choose in this life, it can only be a will created to be perfectly free to do so.  If this were not so--those heavenly perfected angels who experienced the heavens and glory of God as Lucifer could have never "chosen" to rebel against God.  Which begs the question then--are we eternally free to choose such as Gods angels were who rebelled?  My answer would be yes we are because mankind will someday in his perfected state judge the angels of God.

God is light and in Him there is not darkness.  I believe that we are eternally perfectly free in Christ and that God only wants those who want Him--here in this life and in the next.  God wants His creation to love Him freely, understanding how much He loves them.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

From where I sit, the denial of free will has the same cause as the denial of predestination:  _1)_ people insisting on maintaining a logical, rational understanding (which is fine, excepting point 2) but _2)_ failing to account for the the nature of eternity itself and therefore constraining the operation of God within the boundaries of time.  

When it really becomes clear that God can go back and forth in time like we go from the kitchen to the living room, and address both ends at the exact same moment (with prophecies and fulfillments and the moving of the Spirit and so on), *that the order in which things take place here in the creation is completely and entirely meaningless* altogether.  We move in pursuit of God, and God will put the "now" together.  God is our partner is this kind of dance, He is predestination, and we are free will.  These operate together to 1) attract lost souls to the dance floor, and 2) draw each individual closer to God, moving in concert with Him, in His Spirit.

Our transfiguration, also, is an assemblage of our finest "nows" while the conscious soul being caught up to the realm of eternity.  Those gems, with the hay and stubble in between being burned away.

Just because you were chosen, _literally,_ from before the universe was made - to be the _Elect_ of God, does not mean that God did not actually _make_ that choice upon the _Great White Throne_.  God is outside of our universe altogether, and the sequence in which we experience things in time is irrelevant to Him.

He sees the whole thing at once.  In His frame of reference within the realm of Eternity it is just 'natural' that the end and the beginning are seen _at once_.  so every "beginning decision" _holds equal account_ to every "ending decision."  Down here, these are different things.  Up there they are not, they are the exact same thing.

The decision to call your soul to the Election was made on the Great White Throne.  Therefore you were written into the Book of Life from before the universe was made, and then called according to the Election of God's will.  This is not "play and replay" this is God interacting with the end and the beginning in the same moment.  _He draws us up, in the middle, in His own hands._  He makes ALL THINGS good for them who love the Lord.  He manifests reality around us as we abide in His Spirit, by adjusting the course of time before and after us.

One day (soon, and very soon I think) we will become transfigured, and we will be purified and glorified and transformed.  The process that actually does this is being 'caught up' to the Third Heaven and becoming fixed in eternal mindedness.  No longer will we see through a glass, darkly, but we will see as He sees, _catch up_ to our eternal selves already in heaven, while our (transfigured) bodies still moving about here in time, and setting up His Kingdom to reign on Earth.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Suppose one considered God the original parent of the human race?  When has there ever been a time when humans didn't question their parents?  

An idea that a person can't question who made them sounds nice, but it ain't gonna happen unless unreasonable measures are taken to indoctrinate them.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Soon, and very soon!

----------


## Brett85

> So....no answer to the question.
> 
> 
> Acptulsa, I really would suggest trying to have a teachable spirit.  Your pride and smart remarks are keeping you in darkness.


Ha ha, hilarious.  SF is actually calling someone else "prideful."

----------


## Terry1

> Soon, and very soon!


I love-love-love BeBe & CeCe Winan's.

----------


## acptulsa

> Ha ha, hilarious.  SF is actually calling someone else "prideful."


Hey!  Leave Sola and me alone.

We read on some Camp website somewhere that The Light is bad for one's eyes.

----------


## Terry1

> Hey!  Leave Sola and me alone.
> 
> We read on some Camp website somewhere that The Light is bad for one's eyes.



That's only if you look directly into it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ha ha, hilarious.  SF is actually calling someone else "prideful."


Do you say the Potter has hands?  Or do you say the Potter has no hands?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's only if you look directly into it.


Do you say the Potter has hands?  Or do you say the Potter has no hands?

----------


## acptulsa

> Do you say the Potter has hands?  Or do you say the Potter has no hands?


Trying to pin down which side of a _metaphor_ someone's on is not unlike trying to impale a living, conscious housefly with a thumbtack.  Especially when people have serious reservations about your interpretation of it.

Which, you know, would be fine if we were houseflies.  As opposed to being humans who are being treated as houseflies.




> Ha ha, hilarious.  SF is actually calling someone else "prideful."


What, you think being so proud of being 'elect' and not having to do good works that you do evil works instead is somehow harmful or destructive..?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Trying to pin down which side of a _metaphor_ someone's on is not unlike trying to impale a living, conscious housefly with a thumbtack.  Especially when people have serious reservations about your interpretation of it.
> 
> Which, you know, would be fine if we were houseflies.  As opposed to being humans who are being treated as houseflies.



We already know that you won't respond to the question.  I'm giving other people a chance to respond.  I really want to know if there are some people here will say that the Potter has no hands.

----------


## acptulsa

I found you a Potter with no legs...

http://overlawyered.com/2006/12/potter-v-ford-motor/

Does that help?




> We already know that you won't respond to the question.


I answered the question with a metaphor.  And you didn't understand it.  Either that, or you couldn't twist it to serve your purpose and so you ignored it.

So, how am I supposed to help you?

----------


## moostraks

> How many here believe that the Potter has no hands?  Several.





> We already know that you won't respond to the question.  I'm giving other people a chance to respond.  I really want to know if there are some people here will say that the Potter has no hands.


You fancy yourself all knowing with your original declaration. Why play cat and mouse? Too scared to back up your op and be shown wrong or too little respect for your neighbor to give them the opportunity to deny your false allegations. 

What was that again about bearing false witness?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_sh..._thy_neighbour

But then again when your sins are covered and you have a free ticket to act as you like because other pots are made for torture for your enjoyment, well just sucks to be the person who is the object of your wrath, eh?

----------


## Brett85

> Do you say the Potter has hands?  Or do you say the Potter has no hands?


The potter certainly has hands.  That's evident by the fact that he made all of us unique and different.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Let me start off by saying that I agree 100% with Sola_Fide and FreedomFanatic on the nature of "Free Will." However, I don't think that they have explained it as well as they should to you.
> 
> Really, the debate over "free will" has the prerequisite of another doctrine--total depravity. If men are totally depraved, by which is meant they are dead in their sins and transgressions and utterly incapable of pleasing God *on their own*, then the denial of "free will" can actually make some sense. I won't spend time on the passages that teach "total depravity" (I'm sure my brothers Sola and FF will oblige you all on those), but I just wanted to bring that up because I want you to understand that that doctrine is the common denominator when we Calvinists are rejecting "free will."
> 
> As Calvinists, we recognize that there is a difference between "the freedom of choice" and "the freedom of volition." People make choices all of the time: they choose what groceries to buy, what clothes to wear, what school to attend, whom they want to marry, _ad infinitum_. However, those choices are *never made in isolation*; they are based on preferences, tastes, etc. That is where volition (or will) comes into play. The will is what inclines us to make a decision, given a set of choices or options.
> 
> As an example, think of a lion feeding. If you were to place a bowl of antelope meat and a bowl of Romanian lettuce before him, which of the two would he choose? More than likely, the lion would choose the bowl of antelope meat, and he would do that every single time the two were offered to him. Now, recognize that the lion made a choice. But ask yourselves, "What was the cause of his choice?" The thing which inclined the lion to eat the bowl of meat is due to the fact of the lion's nature, namely, that he is a carnivore. In order for the lion to choose the bowl of Romanian lettuce over the bowl of antelope meat, the lion's nature, as a carnivore, would have to be drastically or miraculously changed. (Yes, I know there are a few lions who actually eat nothing but vegetation, and as rare as that is, let's just stick to the example.)
> 
> So it is with human nature. Because human beings are inclined to make choices that please themselves before pleasing God (due to our sinful natures), we do not have a "free will." In fact, such choices are evidence that we are in bondage to sin, and that is why we need Jesus, in the first place. He saves us from that bondage by causing us to choose Him, follow Him, and seek after those things which please His Father, in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is freedom to do that which God is pleased with, and Christ was the epitome of that. He is our "William Wallace," our "Braveheart," if I can put it like that. Though humans have wills, and we make choices, that doesn't make either of those faculties "free" if they are only doing that which goes against the Author of liberty Himself.
> ...


I'm glad somebody else uses the lion analogy  I don't remember if I read that somewhere or if I came up with it on my own, but I've been using it for awhile  +rep.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The potter certainly has hands.  That's evident by the fact that he made all of us unique and different.


Does the Potter have the sovereign right to make some pots for destruction and some pots for glory?  Yes or No?

----------


## Brett85

> Does the Potter have the sovereign right to make some pots for destruction and some pots for glory?  Yes or No?


Yes, he does.  But that verse doesn't have anything to do with one's eternal destiny.  It's just explaining why God set the Jews apart and decided to make them his chosen people.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, he does.  But that verse doesn't have anything to do with one's eternal destiny.  It's just explaining why God set the Jews apart and decided to make them his chosen people.


If you were to find out that it was in fact referring to individuals, would you be OK with it?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, he does.  But that verse doesn't have anything to do with one's eternal destiny.  It's just explaining why God set the Jews apart and decided to make them his chosen people.


No.  That is 1000%, absolutely, completely denied by the text.




> *Romans 9: 21-24 
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 
> 
> What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 
> 
> What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?*



The text completely refutes the idea that Paul is talking only about the chosen Jews.  Paul is talking about those called NOT ONLY FROM THE JEWS BUT ALSO FROM THE GENTILES.

----------


## Brett85

> If you were to find out that it was in fact referring to individuals, would you be OK with it?


It would contradict many other passages in the Bible, so I would have to try to reconcile those passages in some way.  Ultimately God has the power to only save some and not others if that's what he chooses to do, but I don't believe that's the character of God that's revealed throughout the Bible.

----------


## Brett85

> The text completely refutes the idea that Paul is talking only about the chosen Jews.  Paul is talking about those called NOT ONLY FROM THE JEWS BUT ALSO FROM THE GENTILES.


Where does the text say anything about anyone's eternal destiny?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ha ha, hilarious.  SF is actually calling someone else "prideful."


Even if SF has a prideful ATTITUDE (which I'll grant for the sake of argument), I think his point is that free will systems are fundamentally prideful in that they implicitly give the sinner some credit for his own salvation, which is a point I cannot disagree with.

----------


## Nang

> Do you believe that the Potter has hands?  Or do you believe that the Potter has no hands?



Yes, the potter formed man with His own hands. . .

It is an interesting metaphor to ponder on, while considering the functions of the "hand."  

The hand works to form, according to instructions given by the brain; therefore the hand figuratively represents creativeness, authority, vocation, vows.  The hand holds, cradles, and protects; caresses and gives comfort.  

Even the eternal and moral Law of God was not only spoken, but written with the finger of God.

And within the very "hands" of God also resides justice:

*"Now, see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; 
I wound and I heal; nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.

For I raise up My hand to heaven and I say:  

'As I live forever, if I whet my glittering sword, and My hand takes hold on judgment,
I will render vengeance to My enemies and repay those who hate Me.'"

Deuteronomy 32:39-43

*Woe to any who would foolishly deny the power of God resides in His sovereign hands.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where does the text say anything about anyone's eternal destiny?


The entire book of Romans, the entire chapter of Romans 9, and the text I just quoted to you.

Being "prepared in advance for glory" and "being prepared in advance for destruction" is language of salvation and damnation.

----------


## acptulsa

> No.  That is 1000%, absolutely, completely denied by the text.


TC's interpretation of Isaiah is completely denied by the fact that much, much later Paul used a similar metaphor to talk on a different subject?

Can we have this on some better authority than yours?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> TC's interpretation of Isaiah is completely denied by the fact that much, much later Paul used a similar metaphor to talk on a different subject?
> 
> Can we have this on some better authority than yours?


I'm lost here.  Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?  

Do you know?

----------


## acptulsa

> No, it's not consistent with the _idol_ that you worship.


Is it possible for you to have a civilized conversation?




> The Bible is completely consistent.


Not the way _you_ interpret it...




> I'm lost here.  Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?  
> 
> Do you know?


Isaiah may well be apples and Romans might well be oranges.

And if you don't understand _that_ metaphor, you have no business telling _anyone_ what is 'metaphorical' and what isn't.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Does the Potter have the sovereign right to make some pots for destruction and some pots for glory?  Yes or No?


Is that a sign of intent, or just a sign that some one sucks at Pottery?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is that a sign of intent, or just a sign that some one sucks at Pottery?


You've seen the text of Romans 9 quoted dozens of times.  What do you think?  Do you think there is intent there?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> You've seen the text of Romans 9 quoted dozens of times.  What do you think?  Do you think there is intent there?


Well... the idea that someone would go through the trouble to intentionally make flawed pots and break them seems odd.  Or maybe this is a weak metaphor.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well... the idea that someone would go through the trouble to intentionally make flawed pots and break them seems odd.  Or maybe this is a weak metaphor.


Why is that odd?  And what is the reason that the Potter makes the pots for destruction?



> *Romans 9:24
> 
> What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?*


He does it to make the riches of His glory know to the objects of His mercy.  The objects of His mercy will truly know how precious grace really is.  

God has EVERY right, as the Sovereign Potter, to make a race full of objects of His wrath.  He has that right.  But in His mercy, He has chosen a people out of the Jews and the Gentiles that are to be objects of His mercy.

----------


## Brett85

> Even if SF has a prideful ATTITUDE (which I'll grant for the sake of argument), I think his point is that free will systems are fundamentally prideful in that they implicitly give the sinner some credit for his own salvation, which is a point I cannot disagree with.


But yet Calvinism isn't prideful when you believe that God chose you (the elect) over everyone else?

----------


## Brett85

> The entire book of Romans, the entire chapter of Romans 9, and the text I just quoted to you.
> 
> Being "prepared in advance for glory" and "being prepared in advance for destruction" is language of salvation and damnation.


But you don't even believe in "destruction," so you can't have it both ways.  If you're going to say that that language is referring to one's eternal destiny, then you also have to accept annihilationism as well.

Personally, I think it can just be interpreted as describing events that happen to people in this life.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But yet Calvinism isn't prideful when you believe that God chose you (the elect) over everyone else?


Of course it isn't, because there is NOTHING in man that makes God choose him.  Every man is as dead as the next.  Every man is as deserving of wrath as the next. That is why Paul says his only boast is in the Lord Jesus Christ.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But you don't even believe in "destruction," so you can't have it both ways.  If you're going to say that that language is referring to one's eternal destiny, then you also have to accept annihilationism as well.


No, you don't believe in "destruction", because you deny how the Bible uses that language as eternal punishment.  The Bible uses "eternal punishment" "eternal death" "eternal destruction" etc. all as different ways of saying the same thing.

----------


## Crashland

> Why is that odd?  And what is the reason that the Potter makes the pots for destruction?
> 
> 
> He does it to make the riches of His glory know to the objects of His mercy.  The objects of His mercy will truly know how precious grace really is.  
> 
> God has EVERY right, as the Sovereign Potter, to make a race full of objects of His wrath.  He has that right.  But in His mercy, He has chosen a people out of the Jews and the Gentiles that are to be objects of His mercy.


Let's say you have two brothers. Would you consider it moral for their father to murder one of them, in order to show the other one just how good it is to be not killed?

----------


## pcosmar

> But yet Calvinism isn't prideful when you believe that God chose you (the elect) over everyone else?


Wouldn't they be surprised to find that they were "elect" to be a smashed pot.

But I do not buy this doctrine.. at all.. 
I trust in Gods Mercy,, and hope to hug them when the tears HAVE BEEN WIPED AWAY.

----------


## Brett85

> The Bible uses "eternal punishment" "eternal death" "eternal destruction" etc. all as different ways of saying the same thing.


I agree.  But you constantly use a straw man argument to claim that I don't believe in eternal punishment.  Eternal destruction and eternal punishment are the same thing.

----------


## Brett85

> But I do not buy this doctrine.. at all..


Me either.

----------


## erowe1

> The potter certainly has hands.  That's evident by the fact that he made all of us unique and different.


There are some who say that it's we, not God, who determined some of the things that make us different from each other.

----------


## Brett85

> Let's say you have two brothers. Would you consider it moral for their father to murder one of them, in order to show the other one just how good it is to be not killed?


I don't think that someone who has no problem at all with God creating certain people for the sole purpose of torturing them for all eternity actually thinks about the concept of "morality."  It's just a sadistic and repulsive theology.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't think that someone who has no problem at all with God creating certain people for the sole purpose of torturing them for all eternity actually thinks about the concept of "morality."  It's just a sadistic and repulsive theology.


You have an anti-Biblical, man-centered theology.  You don't believe Christianity, because Christianity says that all things exist to glorify God, the salvation of the elect AND the punishment of the wicked.

Romans 9 tells us why the reprobate exist.  The sole purpose is NOT "just to torture them".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Let's say you have two brothers. Would you consider it moral for their father to murder one of them, in order to show the other one just how good it is to be not killed?


This is a weak analogy that MIGHT (I'm stretching here) work against extreme positions like equal ultimacy, but has no relation at all to mainstream Calvinism or even mainstream high supralapsarian Calvinism.

A better analogy would be that both brothers are murderers and are being rightfully punished with death, and the father chooses to spare one and have the other executed.  The critical difference is that your analogy wrongly makes God into the murderer rather than a rigtheous judge.  God does not treat anyone unfairly.  God pours out the wrath the elect deserve on Jesus Christ at the cross, while all other bear the wrath they deserve in eternal Hell.  But, nobody bears wrath that he doesn't deserve (except for Jesus Christ.)

----------


## Brett85

> You have an anti-Biblical, man-centered theology.  You don't believe Christianity, because Christianity says that all things exist to glorify God, the salvation of the elect AND the punishment of the wicked.
> 
> Romans 9 tells us why the reprobate exist.  The sole purpose is NOT "just to torture them".


If all things exist to glorify God, then why would God create a bunch of evil people who he knew would never glorify him?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think that someone who has no problem at all with God creating certain people for the sole purpose of torturing them for all eternity actually thinks about the concept of "morality."  It's just a sadistic and repulsive theology.


This is a kind of a strawman, but its only immoral if you assume that the reprobate don't deserve the punishment they are getting.  If they don't deserve it, than yes it is an immoral doctrine.  But this is not the Biblical view.  Biblically the reprobate deserve eternal punishment which they deserve, which is not immoral.

Now, you're kind of meshing two different debates here, the debate on the nature of Hell on the one hand, and the nature of election on the other.  But they don't necessarily have to go together.  Its possible to be a Calvinist who believes in annihilationism (I'm not endorsing this position but its not logically inconsistent) and its possible to be an Arminian who believes in eternal torment (in fact, most do.)  The argument that eternal punishment is unjust, however much or little merit it has, has nothing to do with the election debate.  In this thread we are talking about whether God has the right to save some and condemn others "so that God's purpose of election might stand."  We can ask what exact punishment condemnation entails in another thread.

----------


## Brett85

> A better analogy would be that both brothers are murderers and are being rightfully punished with death, and the father chooses to spare one and have the other executed.  The critical difference is that your analogy wrongly makes God into the murderer rather than a rigtheous judge.


The correct analogy in regards to Calvinism would be if the father put a gun to the head of both of his sons and forced them to go commit murder, and then he condemned them for being murderers but decided to spare one of them for the purpose of showing "mercy" to that one brother, even though he was the one who actually caused the brother to commit murder in the first place.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The correct analogy in regards to Calvinism would be if the father put a gun to the head of both of his sons and forced them to go commit murder, and then he condemned them for being murderers but decided to spare one of them for the purpose of showing "mercy" to that one brother, even though he was the one who actually caused the brother to commit murder in the first place.


I'm actually curious how SF addresses this, or anyone else who subscribes to equal ultimacy (Sola may not subscribe to equal ultimacy in which case I've misrepresented.)  But most Calvinists do not believe God forces people to *sin*.  We believe, or at least, I believe and every Calvinist I know in person believes, that people choose to sin and that God does not cause them to sin.  However, we believe man is enslaved to his sinful nature and so cannot choose God or anything good on his own, and that God must monergistically regenerate a man before he can believe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If all things exist to glorify God, then why would God create a bunch of evil people who he knew would never glorify him?


The punishment of the wicked glorifies the _justice_ of God.

----------


## Crashland

> This is a weak analogy that MIGHT (I'm stretching here) work against extreme positions like equal ultimacy, but has no relation at all to mainstream Calvinism or even mainstream high supralapsarian Calvinism.
> 
> A better analogy would be that both brothers are murderers and are being rightfully punished with death, and the father chooses to spare one and have the other executed.  The critical difference is that your analogy wrongly makes God into the murderer rather than a rigtheous judge.  God does not treat anyone unfairly.  God pours out the wrath the elect deserve on Jesus Christ at the cross, while all other bear the wrath they deserve in eternal Hell.  But, nobody bears wrath that he doesn't deserve (except for Jesus Christ.)


You are right, yours is a better analogy. Let's go with that one then.
You have two inmates on death row who are guilty of the same crime. As they are sent to be executed, the judge decides to spare one of them and not the other, so that the one who was saved would come to understand just how precious it is to receive mercy. Is *that* moral? Not only is it immoral, it doesn't even make sense, as if the one who was saved somehow needed to see the other one get executed to understand how awesome it was that he was spared...

----------


## pcosmar

> If all things exist to glorify God, then why would God create a bunch of evil people who he knew would never glorify him?


Not to mention, to deliberately torture those that were chosen,, and inflict the evil on Man.
 And Satan walking around and ruling all the nations of the earth.

 No,, I do not believe that My God is such.

Sola will ask instead,, if God is not capable of such,, Of course He is. He is sovereign and he certainly does have both the Power and the Law.
He can if he wishes.. I just do not believe that He would.

And Speaking of God's Will,,
Sola_Fide:  Answer this,,, Can God change his mind?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The punishment of the wicked glorifies the _justice_ of God.


I agree, but I don't really see how its "justice" in any real sense with your view (I'm assuming the OTC sermon you posted properly represents your views on this issue.)  It makes more sense if you say man can freely choose to sin, but not to do any good thing or to believe, as I hold.  Now, obviously God is just whatever it does, but this viewpoint doesn't really make sense to me.  Why does God "have to" punish sins that he caused in the first place, based upon your viewpoint?



> You are right, yours is a better analogy. Let's go with that one then.
> You have two inmates on death row who are guilty of the same crime. As they are sent to be executed, the judge decides to spare one of them and not the other, so that the one who was saved would come to understand just how precious it is to receive mercy. Is *that* moral? Not only is it immoral, it doesn't even make sense, as if the one who was saved somehow needed to see the other one get executed to understand how awesome it was that he was spared...


Assuming the spared man's crime is paid for I don't really see the issue.  Perhaps you could argue that the death of an innocent, volunteering man would not properly pay the murderer's penalty.  In a secular justice system, you might be right.  But Biblically, Christ was a sufficient sacrifice to pay for the sins of all of his people.  Biblically, Christ's death was of sufficient worth to save all of his people who were predestined before the foundation of the world.  On the behalf of the rest Christ did not die, and their sins are not paid for.  I see no issues here.

I do, however, see an issue with Arminianism's claim that Christ died for people who still suffer double jeopardy in Hell.

----------


## Brett85

> The punishment of the wicked glorifies the _justice_ of God.


What justice is there in God punishing people for something that he predestined them to do?  They didn't have any choice in the matter.

----------


## pcosmar

> Predestination reflects God's nature, my brother.* Predestination assumes that God had a plan, a reason, for why history is laid out as it is* (even if it's unknown to us, as finite human beings). If predestination is not true, then we have to assume that everything in history is unknown to God, which means that He is not in control of events of any kind. Everything is a surprise to Him, in that regard. Thus, God loses His ominscience and omnipotence, which means that He cannot be God.


And that part of it I can understand and accept. God Knows what I am going to do,, even before I do it.

But that is quite different from ,"God made me do that.".

So I ask the same question to you? Can God change his mind?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What justice is there in God punishing people for something that he predestined them to do?  They didn't have any choice in the matter.


If people were enslaved by their natures to sin, and God chose to leave the vast majority of humanity to the fate they rightfully deserved, while choosing to change the hearts of the elect so that they would believe and be saved, would you object?  Or is your objection solely based at SF's active hardening doctrine?

----------


## Brett85

> I'm actually curious how SF addresses this, or anyone else who subscribes to equal ultimacy (Sola may not subscribe to equal ultimacy in which case I've misrepresented.)  But most Calvinists do not believe God forces people to *sin*.  We believe, or at least, I believe and every Calvinist I know in person believes, that people choose to sin and that God does not cause them to sin.  However, we believe man is enslaved to his sinful nature and so cannot choose God or anything good on his own, and that God must monergistically regenerate a man before he can believe.


But if God predestines everything, then every sinful action of man was predestined, and he also would've predestined people to be "enslaved to their sinful natures."  So it doesn't really seem like you can escape the assertion that God is responsible for every evil and sinful action of man.

----------


## Brett85

> If people were enslaved by their natures to sin, and God chose to leave the vast majority of humanity to the fate they rightfully deserved, while choosing to change the hearts of the elect so that they would believe and be saved, would you object?  Or is your objection solely based at SF's active hardening doctrine?


I suppose his doctrine is worse, but with your doctrine it seems like you would still have to believe that God created people "enslaved by their natures to sin."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What justice is there in God punishing people for something that he predestined them to do?  They didn't have any choice in the matter.


Haha...it simply never ends.  You bring up the EXACT objection that Paul answers in Romans 9, OVER and OVER again....and the answer still will not sink in.  Maybe I'll post it with big letters so you will notice it this time.

Paul answers your EXACT objection:



> Romans 9:19-21
> 
> One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"  But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "  Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?


There is your answer TC.

Why does God still hold people accountable for the sin He predestines them to commit?   Because He is the Potter and He has the sovereign right to make some pots for destruction.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But if God predestines everything, then every sinful action of man was predestined, and he also would've predestined people to be "enslaved to their sinful natures."  So it doesn't really seem like you can escape the assertion that God is responsible for every evil and sinful action of man.


I don't even think SF makes God responsible for sin.  Control = responsibility is a  presupposition that must be proven by scripture.



> I suppose his doctrine is worse, but with your doctrine it seems like you would still have to believe that God created people "enslaved by their natures to sin."


Ultimately, yes.  That's the nature of being God.  There's no way around it.  But I think people have actually been evil since the Fall, I don't think that God is like "hey, here's morally neutral Pharaoh, let me inject some evil thoughts into his head so I can condemn him."  Yes, at some point God had to choose to create Pharaoh how he was.  And I'd say if he were any different, he wouldn't really be "Pharaoh", he'd be someone else, much like my identity would not be the same were I not Christian.  But ultimately, yes, God is in control of everything that happens.  There's no way to deny that without embracing open theism or being logically inconsistent.

----------


## Nang

> What justice is there in God punishing people for something that he predestined them to do?  They didn't have any choice in the matter.



Your question can only be answered by coming to the understanding of the federal headship of Adam.  

Adam chose to break the Law of God, knowing his action would alter the standing with God of all his seed.  Adam broke covenant as head of the human race, and no man since, having inherited his fallen and sinful nature, can do better.  Romans 3:19-20

----------


## Brett85

> Haha...it simply never ends.  You bring up the EXACT objection that Paul answers in Romans 9, OVER and OVER again....and the answer still will not sink in.  Maybe I'll post it with big letters so you will notice it this time.
> 
> Paul answers your EXACT objection:


My guess is that if Paul were alive today and could answer questions that people have about his writings, he would give the meaning of Romans 9 as being something completely different than the Calvinist version.  And your entire argument for Calvinism is basically Romans 9, and you just ignore the rest of the Bible.

----------


## Brett85

> Your question can only be answered by coming to the understanding of the federal headship of Adam.  
> 
> Adam chose to break the Law of God, knowing his action would alter the standing with God of all his seed.  Adam broke covenant as head of the human race, and no man since, having inherited his fallen and sinful nature, can do better.  Romans 3:19-20


But you and others have said over and over again that Adam never actually had any free will, that God simply predestined him to eat the forbidden fruit.  Your assertion is that God wanted him to eat the fruit.

----------


## Nang

> I don't even think SF makes God responsible for sin.  Control = responsibility is a  presupposition that must be proven by scripture.
> 
> 
> Ultimately, yes.  That's the nature of being God.  There's no way around it.  But *I think people have actually been evil since the Fall,* I don't think that God is like "hey, here's morally neutral Pharaoh, let me inject some evil thoughts into his head so I can condemn him."  Yes, at some point God had to choose to create Pharaoh how he was.  And I'd say if he were any different, he wouldn't really be "Pharaoh", he'd be someone else, much like my identity would not be the same were I not Christian.  But ultimately, yes, God is in control of everything that happens.  There's no way to deny that without embracing open theism or being logically inconsistent.


The highlighted above, is the truth and the answer.

----------


## Brett85

God was even responsible for the fall, according to the Calvinists.  So you can't even blame Adam for making a choice that brought sin into the world.

----------


## Nang

> But you and others have said over and over again that Adam never actually had any free will, that God simply predestined him to eat the forbidden fruit.  Your assertion is that God wanted him to eat the fruit.


That has never been my argument, so I don't know why you stick me with it.

Adam was given commands and had moral responsibility and the agency (a will) obligated to obey them.

Adam was NOT free to disobey them.

IOW's, Adam being created in the image of God, was a willful man, but he was not created autonomous of God's moral Law.  Adam had a will, but he was accountable to submit his human will to the sovereign will of God in all things.

----------


## Nang

> God was even responsible for the fall, according to the Calvinists.  So you can't even blame Adam for making a choice that brought sin into the world.


God ordained the fall, but Adam actually brought it about in time, by wrongly exercising the secondary moral agency given to him by God.

God created Adam.

Adam caused sin.

The bible teaches both.  Genesis 1:26-28; Romans 5:12

----------


## Brett85

> God ordained the fall, but Adam actually brought it about in time, by wrongly exercising the secondary moral agency given to him by God.
> 
> God created Adam.
> 
> Adam caused sin.
> 
> The bible teaches both.  Genesis 1:26-28; Romans 5:12


But Adam was simply doing what God wanted him to do and what God predestined him to do, right?

----------


## pcosmar

> That has never been my argument, so I don't know why you stick me with it.
> 
> Adam was given commands and had moral responsibility and the agency (a will) obligated to obey them.
> 
> Adam was NOT free to disobey them.
> 
> IOW's, Adam being created in the image of God, was a willful man, but he was not created autonomous of God's moral Law.  Adam had a will, but he was accountable to submit his human will to the sovereign will of God in all things.


Who put the Serpent in the Garden?

----------


## Terry1

> Haha...it simply never ends.  You bring up the EXACT objection that Paul answers in Romans 9, OVER and OVER again....and the answer still will not sink in.  Maybe I'll post it with big letters so you will notice it this time.
> 
> Paul answers your EXACT objection:
> 
> 
> There is your answer TC.
> 
> Why does God still hold people accountable for the sin He predestines them to commit?   Because He is the Potter and He has the sovereign right to make some pots for destruction.


God didn't "cause" Lucifer and a third of heaven to rebel against him.  God didn't "cause" Adam or Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  God didn't cause, evil sin and death.  God does not toy with His creation by "causing them to do things that He said He will make them suffer eternally for either.  God is pure light and goodness as scripture says.  God did not create evil, sin and death--these are the cause of Lucifer who abandoned Gods light and became the "prince of darkness"--he is the author cause of evil, sin, darkness and death and only him.

How said it is that you have been deceived into believing such nonsense and that you believe your heavenly Father would do and be such a God to His own creation--how very sad.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But Adam was simply doing what God wanted him to do and what God predestined him to do, right?





> Romans 9:19-21
> 
> One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 
> 
> But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?...


...

----------


## Crashland

> God didn't "cause" Lucifer and a third of heaven to rebel against him.  God didn't "cause" Adam or Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  God didn't cause, evil sin and death.  God does not toy with His creation by "causing them to do things that He said He will make them suffer eternally for either.  God is pure light and goodness as scripture says.  God did not create evil, sin and death--these are the cause of Lucifer who abandoned Gods light and became the "prince of darkness"--he is the author cause of evil, sin, darkness and death and only him.
> 
> How said it is that you have been deceived into believing such nonsense and that you believe your heavenly Father would do and be such a God to His own creation--how very sad.


If God really didn't will for Lucifer to rebel, it wouldn't have happened. That is the unfortunate, but inevitable conclusion when God is both omnipotent and omniscient. Nothing can happen that God does not will to happen. "Allowing" Lucifer to rebel is the equivalent of willing it, because if God had willed differently, he would have not allowed it.

----------


## pcosmar

> God ordained the fall, but Adam actually brought it about in time, by wrongly exercising the secondary moral agency given to him by God.
> 
> God created Adam.
> 
> Adam caused sin.
> 
> The bible teaches both.  Genesis 1:26-28; Romans 5:12


The Law Created sin.



> Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.…





> because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.





> Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

----------


## Terry1

> God ordained the fall, but Adam actually brought it about in time, by wrongly exercising the secondary moral agency given to him by God.
> 
> God created Adam.
> 
> Adam caused sin.
> 
> The bible teaches both.  Genesis 1:26-28; Romans 5:12


Adam did not "cause" sin.  Adam disobeyed God and fell to sin--sin that already existed because of satan--the serpent waiting for them in the garden.

I no long have any ill feelings towards you--only pity and sadness and enough that I know prayer is in order for you poor souls who've been deceived into believing this doctrine.  How very sad it is that you believe your heavenly Father would cause you to do something that He will make you suffer eternally for.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God does not toy with His creation by "causing them to do things that He said He will make them suffer eternally for either.





> Romans 9:19-21
> 
> One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 
> 
> "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?


...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But Adam was simply doing what God wanted him to do and what God predestined him to do, right?





> Romans 9:19-21
> 
> One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 
> 
> But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?...


...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Law Created sin.


No.  The verse that you posted clearly says that sin was still in the world before there was the law:




> Romans 5:12 
> 
> Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, *and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world.* But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

----------


## Terry1

> If God really didn't will for Lucifer to rebel, it wouldn't have happened. That is the unfortunate, but inevitable conclusion when God is both omnipotent and omniscient. Nothing can happen that God does not will to happen. "Allowing" Lucifer to rebel is the equivalent of willing it, because if God had willed differently, he would have not allowed it.


The only reason anyone would believe that God would cause evil, sin and death, just for the purpose of curing it by allowing His Son to be tortured to death on the cross is only if they refuse to believe that God created us with perfect eternal freedom and a will to choose whom we will follow.  

This unravels the mystery for you and turns your evil puppet master God back into the loving God who created all of His sons and children with perfect freedom to choose whom they will serve at any point and time throughout eternity.  If this were not so--Lucifer could have never rebelled in the first place.  God didn't ordain it--God foreknew it, but He didn't cause it.

----------


## Nang

> But Adam was simply doing what God wanted him to do and what God predestined him to do, right?


God gave Adam commands that revealed His will.   It is the Law that established the Covenant of Works in the garden, which Adam was responsible to adhere, in order to live. 

God predestined the consequences of Adam breaking His holy Law and commands.

----------


## Crashland

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use _destruction_?"

Maybe so, but if he is playing with human souls instead of clay pots, the potter shouldn't feel so entitled.

----------


## Nang

> Who put the Serpent in the Garden?


The serpent was not held responsible for bringing sin and death into this world.  Adam is held to blame.  Romans 5:12

----------


## Nang

> The Law Created sin.



Incorrect.

If Adam had obeyed God's commands (Law) there would have been no sin or death imputed to mankind.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The only reason anyone would believe that God would cause evil, sin and death, just for the purpose of curing it by allowing His Son to be tortured to death on the cross is only if they refuse to believe that God created us with perfect eternal freedom and a will to choose whom we will follow.  
> 
> This unravels the mystery for you and turns* your evil puppet master God* back into the loving God who created all of His sons and children with perfect freedom to choose whom they will serve at any point and time throughout eternity.  If this were not so--Lucifer could have never rebelled in the first place.  God didn't ordain it--God foreknew it, but He didn't cause it.


I just want to alert the moderators to this post, because if you believe in what the Bible says about the sovereign Lord, you are called a worshiper of an "evil" "puppetmaster god".  

All of us who believe this simple Scriptural truth have had to endure this from several members of this forum.  We hear it so much that most of the time, we don't ever say anything about this to the moderation.  But I have decided I am going to start alerting the moderation about this.

----------


## pcosmar

> If God really didn't will for Lucifer to rebel, it wouldn't have happened. That is the unfortunate, but inevitable conclusion when God is both omnipotent and omniscient. Nothing can happen that God does not will to happen. "Allowing" Lucifer to rebel is the equivalent of willing it, because if God had willed differently, he would have not allowed it.


AH,, keep peeling the onion.

As I understand.. Lucifer was Created as a servant. A Created being for the sole purpose of serving.. It was never given Free Will. And he was one of the greatest of Gods creation.
He Rebelled. He went against Gods will. There war War in Heaven,, because the creature had rebelled against his Creator.
And ,, of course God could have Crushed him out of existence.
He did not.

He was cast to earth. Banished to this temporal world.. He lives here.

He was here when man was Created. Perhaps that war in heaven was at about the same time?/ I don't know.
But he was in the Garden,

I am of the opinion that this is Satan's trial, not so much ours. And those that live on the earth will be witnesses at his trial.
And both the mercy and righteous of God will be seen by both heaven and earth.

But this is about rebellion,, 

I suggest the 1st Book of Job,, for a start.

----------


## pcosmar

> Incorrect.
> 
> If Adam had obeyed God's commands (Law) there would have been no sin or death imputed to mankind.


Had their been no Law,, there would have been no sin.

And who put that snake in the garden?

----------


## Terry1

> Sola_Fide;5542679
> 
> 
> Romans 9:19-21
> 
>  One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 
> 
>  But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 
> 
>  Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?..


This is telling you that we are not to question Gods authority on what He does with whom, because only God knows the hearts of men and not us.  We don't question why God does what He does because of this and for this very same reason we are told "not to judge others"--because we will be judged by that same measure.

God foreknows the hearts of men--who will come and who won't, but God never makes their choices for them or causes them to be evil.  God foreknew pharaoh too and hence further hardened pharaoh's heart because God foreknew Pharaoh and not because God made or caused him to be evil from the start--Pharaoh was already evil--God just hastened the hardening of Pharaoh to fulfill Gods plan by hardening his heart further.

The same with Easu--God foreknew--foresaw what Esau would choose.  God didn't make Esau evil--God foreknew Esau.  God doesn't cause people to be evil just to destroy them in hell.  People make their own choices--God simply foreknows them in advance and acts upon His own foreknowledge then.

----------


## Nang

> AH,, keep peeling the onion.
> 
> As I understand.. Lucifer was Created as a servant. A Created being for the sole purpose of serving.. It was never given Free Will. And he was one of the greatest of Gods creation.
> He Rebelled. He went against Gods will. There war War in Heaven,, because the creature had rebelled against his Creator.
> And ,, of course God could have Crushed him out of existence.
> He did not.
> 
> He was cast to earth. Banished to this temporal world.. He lives here.
> 
> ...


God did not create Satan in His image.  God did not establish Covenant with Satan.  God did not give Satan any moral agency (no actual powers of cause and effect) as He gave Adam.  

Yes, Satan rebelled and left his "first estate" (created purpose*), but it was Adam who broke Covenant, wrongly exercised his moral agency (will), and disobeyed the Law and commands of God.

*Angels were created to be ministering servants of the sons of God.  Satan and a third of the angels rebelled against this ministry, and instead became* accusers and deceivers* of men.  Through the sin of Adam, all mankind is now held enslaved and under bondage to serving the devil, due to *the deceit* of Satan . . . but suffer imputed sin and the curse of the death sentence due to the willful action of unbelief of Adam.  Romans 5:12-21

----------


## Terry1

> I just want to alert the moderators to this post, because if you believe in what the Bible says about the sovereign Lord, you are called a worshiper of an "evil" "puppetmaster god".  
> 
> All of us who believe this simple Scriptural truth have had to endure this from several members of this forum.  We hear it so much that most of the time, we don't ever say anything about this to the moderation.  But I have decided I am going to start alerting the moderation about this.


I didn't alert the mods when you and Nang accused me of being a "Gnostic" or when you called us "agents of satan".  Stop whining to the mods over these slights Sola--control your temper.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is telling you that we are not to question Gods authority on what He does with whom, because only God knows the hearts of men and not us.  We don't question why God does what He does because of this and for this very same reason we are told "not to judge others"--because we will be judged by that same measure.
> 
> God foreknows the hearts of men--who will come and who won't, but God never makes their choices for them or causes them to be evil.  God foreknew pharaoh too and hence further hardened pharaoh's heart because God foreknew Pharaoh and not because God made or caused him to be evil from the start--Pharaoh was already evil--God just hastened the hardening of Pharaoh to fulfill Gods plan by hardening his heart further.
> 
> The same with Easu--God foreknew--foresaw what Esau would choose.  God didn't make Esau evil--God foreknew Esau.  God doesn't cause people to be evil just to destroy them in hell.  People make their own choices--God simply foreknows them in advance and acts upon His own foreknowledge then.


No Terry.  This is telling YOU that the Potter creates some pots for glory and some pots for destruction.

Do not presume to tell me what your perverted, man-centered interpretation is of this text and then phrase it like "God is trying to tell you this".  You don't what you are talking about.

----------


## Terry1

> God did not create Satan in His image.  God did not establish Covenant with Satan.  God did not give Satan any moral agency (no actual powers of cause and effect) as He gave Adam.  
> 
> Yes, Satan rebelled and left his "first estate" (created purpose*), but it was Adam who broke Covenant, wrongly exercised his moral agency (will), and disobeyed the Law and commands of God.
> 
> *Angels were created to be ministering servants of the sons of God.  Satan and a third of the angels rebelled against this ministry, and instead became* accusers and deceivers* of men.  Through the sin of Adam, all mankind is now held enslaved and under bondage to serving the devil, due to *the deceit* of Satan . . . but suffer imputed sin and the curse of the death sentence due to the willful action of unbelief of Adam.  Romans 5:12-21


Lucifer was the Anointed Cherub. Anointed means to be set apart for Gods Divine purpose. It also means "bestowal of Gods divine favor", and "appointment to a special place or function." 
God had given Satan a certain amount of power and authority. But he perverted that power. Lucifer wanted to exalt himself above God... rather than "just" being the Angel of God. 


 Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it. 
 ( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 ) 
Like man, the angels were created perfect, and with a free will. 

Satan was lifted up because of his beauty, he corrupted the wisdom by reason of his brightness (This is in Ezekiel 28:17) 

Ezekiel 28:12 (KJV)

 "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty."  
 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.  

 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."  

This is not an earthly king, as the word "cherub" is only used in references to angels. 

 15 "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."  

 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.  

The word "covering" is from the Hebrew word cakak, and means: to entwine, to fence in, cover over, protect, defend, hedge in, (source "The complete word study Old Testament") 

Was Lucifer’s job to protect the very earth he corrupted? Was this one of his duties that gave him so much pride? 

 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.  

0 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I didn't alert the mods when you and Nang accused me of being a "Gnostic" or when you called us "agents of satan".  Stop whining to the mods over these slights Sola--control your temper.


I don't have a temper at all about it.  It doesn't anger me in the slightest.  I labeled you a Gnostic because that is EXACTLY what you expressed.  And then I backed it up with explaining to you what Gnosticism was (which you didn't even know what it was...you had to look it up).

----------


## pcosmar

> God did not create Satan in His image.


 Nope,, never said he did. 




> God did not establish Covenant with Satan.


 Nope,, never said he did. 




> God did not give Satan any moral agency (no actual powers of cause and effect) as He gave Adam.


 Nope,, never said he did.  Satan had no Free Will. He was created for a purpose, as a Servant, not as a companion.




> Yes, Satan rebelled and left his "first estate" (created purpose), but it was Adam who broke Covenant, wrongly exercised his moral agency (will), and disobeyed the Law and commands of God.


Yes he did,, and he took a third of the angels with him.. He wanted the throne.

He is on Trial.

The knowledge or Good and Evil. And you have to have a free will to be able to make the wrong choice.
You can not understand evil unless you have seen it,, and can compare it to good.. 

Read the First book of Job.(heck, read all of it) Job is a witness.

----------


## Terry1

> No Terry.  This is telling YOU that the Potter creates some pots for glory and some pots for destruction.
> 
> Do not presume to tell me what your perverted, man-centered interpretation is of this text and then phrase it like "God is trying to tell you this".  You don't what you are talking about.


  We are the clay--God provokes us and draws us to Him, but He does not force the clay--He works it and molds it as that same clay conforms to His image and likeness.  The clay does this conforming willingly allowing God to form it into His image and likeness.  Clay that does not conform is destroyed.  God foreknows the clay because God foreknows our hearts--we are the clay.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't have a temper at all about it.  It doesn't anger me in the slightest.  I labeled you a Gnostic because that is EXACTLY what you expressed.  And then I backed it up with explaining to you what Gnosticism was (which you didn't even know what it was...you had to look it up).


Well that works both ways Sola--the God that you've portrayed is an evil puppet master God--not a loving God who created us with perfect freedom--see how that works?

----------


## Nang

> Lucifer was the Anointed Cherub. Anointed means to be set apart for Gods Divine purpose. It also means "bestowal of Gods divine favor", and "appointment to a special place or function." 
> God had given Satan a certain amount of power and authority. But he perverted that power. Lucifer wanted to exalt himself above God... rather than "just" being the Angel of God. 
> 
> 
>  Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it. 
>  ( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 ) 
> Like man, the angels were created perfect, and with a free will. 
> 
> Satan was lifted up because of his beauty, he corrupted the wisdom by reason of his brightness (This is in Ezekiel 28:17) 
> ...


You are taking the prophetic warnings from God to the literal King of Tyre, and attempting to transition this real person, into being Satan.

At most, one can only study this literal passage, to discover a possible type of both Adam and Satan, due to the results of their transaction in the garden.  But one must be very careful with how one applies typology to soteriology, hartiology, or eschatology, and taking it so far as to blame Satan for what Adam caused.

----------


## Crashland

> The only reason anyone would believe that God would cause evil, sin and death, just for the purpose of curing it by allowing His Son to be tortured to death on the cross is only if they refuse to believe that God created us with perfect eternal freedom and a will to choose whom we will follow.  
> 
> This unravels the mystery for you and turns your evil puppet master God back into the loving God who created all of His sons and children with perfect freedom to choose whom they will serve at any point and time throughout eternity.  If this were not so--Lucifer could have never rebelled in the first place.  God didn't ordain it--God foreknew it, but He didn't cause it.


Yes, that would explain quite a lot. But I would question whether that is even possible. Creating a being that has true freedom would require God to have a limit to his power -- namely, to relinquish control in order to allow things to happen which he might not otherwise have wanted to happen, as a result of that free choice. I am not sure it makes sense that God could impose a limit on his own power.

----------


## moostraks

> I just want to alert the moderators to this post, because if you believe in what the Bible says about the sovereign Lord, you are called a worshiper of an "evil" "puppetmaster god".  
> 
> All of us who believe this simple Scriptural truth have had to endure this from several members of this forum.  We hear it so much that most of the time, we don't ever say anything about this to the moderation.  But I have decided I am going to start alerting the moderation about this.





> No Terry.  This is telling YOU that the Potter creates some pots for glory and some pots for destruction.
> 
> Do not presume to tell me what your perverted, man-centered interpretation is of this text and then phrase it like "God is trying to tell you this".  You don't what you are talking about.





> I don't have a temper at all about it.  It doesn't anger me in the slightest.  I labeled you a Gnostic because that is EXACTLY what you expressed.  And then I backed it up with explaining to you what Gnosticism was (which you didn't even know what it was...you had to look it up).





> You have an anti-Biblical, man-centered theology.  You don't believe Christianity, because Christianity says that all things exist to glorify God, the salvation of the elect AND the punishment of the wicked.
> 
> Romans 9 tells us why the reprobate exist.  The sole purpose is NOT "just to torture them".





> No, it's not consistent with the _idol_ that you worship.  The Bible is completely consistent.


...

----------


## Nang

> Satan had no Free Will.


Agreed.




> He was created for a purpose, as a Servant, not as a companion.


Agreed.






> Yes he did,, and he took a third of the angels with him.. He wanted the throne.


Yes.  He and a third of the created angels rebelled against their purpose to minister to the sons of men.




> He is on Trial.


No trial.  He and his minions are already consigned to hellfire.  




> The knowledge or Good and Evil. And you have to have a free will to be able to make the wrong choice.


I contend, because of the witness of creation and the fellowship Adam had with God in the garden, and the dominion and intelligence given to Adam, plus the commands and revelation made of the Holy Will of God via the Covenant and Law, that Adam had knowledge of good and clear warning of evil/death, before he disobeyed and partook of the forbidden tree.  Adam simply did not exhibit faith in God, love for God, or belief in God's word.






> You can not understand evil unless you have seen it,, and can compare it to good..


I do not believe this.  I believe all sons of Adam have full knowledge of evil and death . . . even without willing, let alone comparing it, to the goodness of God.  Romans 1:18-21




> Read the First book of Job.(heck, read all of it) Job is a witness.


Job is a witness to what?

----------


## Nang

> I didn't alert the mods when you and Nang accused me of being a "Gnostic" or when you called us "agents of satan".  Stop whining to the mods over these slights Sola--control your temper.



There is a big difference between describing YOU and YOUR religious views as being Gnostic . . . than with *YOU declaring God* " to be evil" and a "puppet-master God."

You are just a creature stumbling around in the dark. 

He is Holy God Almighty; whom you blaspheme without hesitation.

Shame on you . . .

----------


## Brett85

> I just want to alert the moderators to this post, because if you believe in what the Bible says about the sovereign Lord, you are called a worshiper of an "evil" "puppetmaster god".  
> 
> All of us who believe this simple Scriptural truth have had to endure this from several members of this forum.  We hear it so much that most of the time, we don't ever say anything about this to the moderation.  But I have decided I am going to start alerting the moderation about this.


I can't think of anything more hypocritical than Sola Fide claiming that someone else is being uncivil.  I don't think Sola Fide has ever written a single post that was civil.

----------


## Nang

> Yes, that would explain quite a lot. But I would question whether that is even possible. *Creating a being that has true freedom would require God to have a limit to his power* -- namely, to relinquish control in order to allow things to happen which he might not otherwise have wanted to happen, as a result of that free choice. I am not sure it makes sense that God could impose a limit on his own power.


Exactly.  This nails it . . .

If God had created beings with autonomous free will, without parameters, and His moral Law made known, God would have created Gods.

For only God has a truly free will.

God could not create Gods, for the very definition of "God" is "UNCREATE."

Men were created in God's image, as willful beings, but God knowing they are just dust, limited their wills and subjected their willfulness to conform and submit to His will and wisdom.

Man has a will, but it was never free to function in opposition to the sovereign will of God.

----------


## Nang

> I can't think of anything more hypocritical than Sola Fide claiming that someone else is being uncivil.  I don't think Sola Fide has ever written a single post that was civil.


I think you exaggerate with malice in your heart.

----------


## Brett85

> You are taking the prophetic warnings from God to the literal King of Tyre, and attempting to transition this real person, into being Satan.


That verse is saying that Satan was behind the actions of the King of Tyre.

----------


## Brett85

> I think you exaggerate with malice in your heart.


I have malice in my heart because I don't like someone who comes here constantly condemning and judging others?

----------


## Nang

> That verse is saying that Satan was behind the actions of the King of Tyre.


Where?

----------


## Nang

> I have malice in my heart because I don't like someone who comes here constantly condemning and judging others?



Only proclaiming the true (and scriptural) gospel of Jesus Christ, condemns and judges souls.

----------


## Crashland

> I have malice in my heart because I don't like someone who comes here constantly condemning and judging others?


Jesus probably didn't like it when they were condemning and judging him either. ^.^

----------


## pcosmar

> No.  The verse that you posted clearly says that sin was still in the world before there was the law:


IT DOES doesn't it..
Sin was in the world ,, before the creation of man.

Who put that there?

----------


## Brett85

> Man has a will, but it was never free to function in opposition to the sovereign will of God.


If everything man does is within the sovereign will of God, then man doesn't ever sin.  As long as man is carrying out God's will, than man is living a perfect life and walking perfectly obediently with God.  It's only when man goes against God's will that sin takes place.  Sin is the willing disobedience of God's commandments.

----------


## Brett85

> Where?


The verse is clearly describing Satan.  It says that he was in the Garden of Eden.  The King of Tyre wasn't in the Garden of Eden.

----------


## Brett85

> Only proclaiming the true (and scriptural) gospel of Jesus Christ, condemns and judges souls.


Yes, you must be right, and the thousands of other denominations who believe differently than you must be wrong.  No arrogance and pride there.

----------


## Crashland

> If everything man does is within the sovereign will of God, then man doesn't ever sin.  As long as man is carrying out God's will, than man is living a perfect life and walking perfectly obediently with God.  It's only when man goes against God's will that sin takes place.  Sin is the willing disobedience of God's commandments.


If everything man does is within the sovereign will of God, and man has sinned, then it is part of God's sovereign will for his commandments to have been broken.

----------


## Nang

> IT DOES doesn't it..
> Sin was in the world ,, before the creation of man.
> 
> Who put that there?



Sin was before creation, or sin was before the Law was broken?

Big difference . . .

----------


## Nang

> Yes, you must be right, and the thousands of other denominations who believe differently than you must be wrong.  No arrogance and pride there.



I do not truth always resides in the majority . . .

----------


## Brett85

> There is a big difference between describing YOU and YOUR religious views as being Gnostic . . . than with *YOU declaring God* " to be evil" and a "puppet-master God."
> 
> You are just a creature stumbling around in the dark. 
> 
> He is Holy God Almighty; whom you blaspheme without hesitation.
> 
> Shame on you . . .


No, she just described the false idol that you worship as an "evil puppet-master god."  The God that is revealed in the Bible is nothing like the god you worship.

----------


## Brett85

> If everything man does is within the sovereign will of God, and man has sinned, then it is part of God's sovereign will for his commandments to have been broken.


Right, and that would make God a liar, since he would be telling people that he wants them to obey his commandments, when he secretly wants them to break his commandments.  I don't believe that God is a liar.

----------


## Terry1

> You are taking the prophetic warnings from God to the literal King of Tyre, and attempting to transition this real person, into being Satan.
> 
> At most, one can only study this literal passage, to discover a possible type of both Adam and Satan, due to the results of their transaction in the garden.  But one must be very careful with how one applies typology to soteriology, hartiology, or eschatology, and taking it so far as to blame Satan for what Adam caused.


Thanks for the tip Nang.  I'll try to be more careful.

----------


## Brett85

> I do not truth always resides in the majority . . .


Of course not, but you should always be open minded and willing to admit that you'll never have all the answers.  You and the other Calvinists just act like God personally came down to earth and told you that Calvinism is the correct interpretation of the Bible.

----------


## Crashland

> Right, and that would make God a liar, since he would be telling people that he wants them to obey his commandments, when he secretly wants them to break his commandments.  I don't believe that God is a liar.


Precisely. That is part of why I feel the attributes of God as described in the Bible (omniscient, omnipotent, just) are inconsistent or self-contradictory.

----------


## Brett85

> Precisely. That is part of why I feel the attributes of God as described in the Bible (omniscient, omnipotent, just) are inconsistent or self-contradictory.


So I take it you're not a Christian?

----------


## Terry1

> The verse is clearly describing Satan.  It says that he was in the Garden of Eden.  The King of Tyre wasn't in the Garden of Eden.


She actually believes that particular scripture is talking about Adam and not Lucifer.  Did you see that piece she posted from a Presbyterian site that claimed the same thing?  How anyone can replace Lucifer with Adam in that scripture is way beyond me.  Adam didn't fall from heaven like it says in that scripture when it's talking about Lucifer (son of the morning).  That's just too bizarre.

Even most commentaries will agree with our understanding--how Nang comes up with this stuff--I have no idea.

----------


## Crashland

> So I take it you're not a Christian?


Correct, I identify mostly with atheism. Currently, that is.

----------


## Nang

> Right, and that would make God a liar, since he would be telling people that he wants them to obey his commandments, when he secretly wants them to break his commandments.  I don't believe that God is a liar.


None of what happened in the garden was a matter of "want" but all of "should."

If God had not revealed His holy moral law through commands to Adam, God would have been a deceiving tyrant.

But before Adam brought sin and death into the world, Adam was clearly given revelation of God's will and holiness and means to life through the commands and warning of death being the consequence if Adam did not obey.

----------


## Brett85

> She actually believes that particular scripture is talking about Adam and not Lucifer.  Did you see that piece she posted from a Presbyterian site that claimed the same thing?  How anyone can replace Adam with Lucifer in that scripture is way beyond me.  Adam didn't fall from heaven like says in that scripture when it's talking about Lucifer (son of the morning).  That's just too bizarre.


I didn't see that.  That is a very bizarre interpretation of those verses.

----------


## Nang

> Thanks for the tip Nang.  I'll try to be more careful.


Sarcasm noted, Terry.

----------


## Brett85

> Correct, I identify mostly with atheism. Currently, that is.


I think our simple minds just can't understand all of the different qualities of God that are explained in the Bible, that may seem to be contradictory.  It seems contradictory to us, but if we had God's wisdom it would make perfect sense.

----------


## Nang

> Of course not, but you should always be open minded and willing to admit that you'll never have all the answers.  You and the other Calvinists just act like God personally came down to earth and told you that Calvinism is the correct interpretation of the Bible.


What is this "Calvinism" stuff?

The Holy Spirit indwelling is anyone's only guide to understanding the Words of God.

----------


## Brett85

> But before Adam brought sin and death into the world, Adam was clearly given revelation of God's will and holiness and means to life through the commands and warning of death being the consequence if Adam did not obey.


But Adam wasn't clearly given a revelation of God's will if God's will was for Adam to eat the apple.

----------


## pcosmar

> No trial.  He and his minions are already consigned to hellfire.


Sorry no,, Satan was cast to earth.. He resides here still. He Rules this world,,for the most part.. With a strong desire to Rule all of it directly.
He is judged,,and he is worthy of destruction.. But that has not happened yet,,that is the End of the Book.




> I contend, because of the witness of creation and the fellowship Adam had with God in the garden, and the dominion and intelligence given to Adam, plus the commands and revelation made of the Holy Will of God via the Covenant and Law, that Adam had knowledge of good and clear warning of evil/death, before he disobeyed and partook of the forbidden tree.  Adam simply did not exhibit faith in God, love for God, or belief in God's word.


Agreed, mostly. Adam made a serious mistake.. But I contend that it was by his free will,, Adam made that decision,, (and I think I know why.)
But yes,, Adam sinned and is worthy of judgement.







> I do not believe this.  I believe all sons of Adam have full knowledge of evil and death . . . even without willing, let alone comparing it, to the goodness of God.  Romans 1:18-21


Of Mortality. yes,, Knowledge,,not so much. But yes,,all men were corrupted by sin. And some have chosen to seek God from the beginning,, and the promise of salvation from sin.







> Job is a witness to what?


To the crimes of Lucifer and his followers.

----------


## Brett85

> What is this "Calvinism" stuff?
> 
> The Holy Spirit indwelling is anyone's only guide to understanding the Words of God.


Yes, and the Holy Spirit speaks to people in different ways, and not everyone has the exact same understanding of every single theological issue in the Bible.

----------


## Crashland

> I think our simple minds just can't understand all of the different qualities of God that are explained in the Bible, that may seem to be contradictory.  It seems contradictory to us, but if we had God's wisdom it would make perfect sense.


That is possible. But I would think that if God created us with some pretty cool reasoning abilities, he should not expect or require us to not use them. After all, aren't we supposed to use our heart, soul, *mind*, and strength?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If everything man does is within the sovereign will of God, and man has sinned, then it is part of God's sovereign will for his commandments to have been broken.





> Right, and that would make God a liar, since he would be telling people that he wants them to obey his commandments, when he secretly wants them to break his commandments.  I don't believe that God is a liar.





> Precisely. That is part of why I feel the attributes of God as described in the Bible (omniscient, omnipotent, just) are inconsistent or self-contradictory.





> So I take it you're not a Christian?





> Correct, I identify mostly with atheism. Currently, that is.



To my brothers and sisters who agree with sovereign grace: 

Here is one example as to why Christianity must be defended against atheism and Arminianism in the same breath.

----------


## Brett85

> That is possible. But I would think that if God created us with some pretty cool reasoning abilities, he should not expect or require us to not use them. After all, aren't we supposed to use our heart, soul, *mind*, and strength?


Yes, but he still didn't create us equal to him, and our ability to see things clearly became diminished after sin entered the world.

----------


## Nang

> But Adam wasn't clearly given a revelation of God's will if God's will was for Adam to eat the apple.


It was not God's will that Adam partake of the forbidden tree.

However, God knowing that a created being could not ever remain as holy as He, created with salvation already decreed according to the sacrifice and grace of His Son, so that these helpless creatures might find access through Him to everlasting life.

Look at the BIG picture of the ordained purposes of God to understand biblical history . . . please!!!

----------


## Terry1

> What is this "Calvinism" stuff?
> 
> The Holy Spirit indwelling is anyone's only guide to understanding the Words of God.


Then ask Him if you're right about that particular scripture that almost all biblical commentaries disagree with you on then regarding "Lucifer--son of the morning".

----------


## Terry1

> What is this "Calvinism" stuff?
> 
> The Holy Spirit indwelling is anyone's only guide to understanding the Words of God.


Then ask Him if you're right about that particular scripture that almost all biblical commentaries disagree with you on then regarding "Lucifer--son of the morning".

----------


## Brett85

> To my brothers and sisters who agree with sovereign grace: 
> 
> Here is one example as to why Christianity must be defended against atheism and Arminianism in the same breath.


Thanks for perfectly illustrating what I said earlier.




> I don't think Sola Fide has ever written a single post that was civil.

----------


## Nang

> Then ask Him if you're right about that particular scripture that almost all biblical commentaries disagree with you on then regarding "Lucifer--son of the morning".


O.K.  Will do that, sweetie . . .

----------


## Crashland

> To my brothers and sisters who agree with sovereign grace: 
> 
> Here is one example as to why Christianity must be defended against atheism and Arminianism in the same breath.


Problem is, on your side of it, from my atheistic perspective I would also find it inconsistent and self-contradictory. Because if God is fully sovereign and in control of everything, then that would conflict with his goodness (see: "puppetmaster, evil"). I don't buy the potter and the clay example as being particularly moral.

----------


## Brett85

> It was not God's will that Adam partake of the forbidden tree.
> 
> However, God knowing that a created being could not ever remain as holy as He, created with salvation already decreed according to the sacrifice and grace of His Son, so that these helpless creatures might find access through Him to everlasting life.
> 
> Look at the BIG picture of the ordained purposes of God to understand biblical history . . . please!!!


I think you came close to getting it right when you used the word "knowing."  God foreknew that Adam was going to sin, but he didn't want him to sin or cause him to sin.

----------


## pcosmar

> Sin was before creation, or sin was before the Law was broken?
> 
> Big difference . . .


No. Sin was in the world at creation. 5 mins one way or the other makes little difference.

There was no Law until it was given. The Laws was at creation..(don't eat of the tree) and sin was there before the Law.

You did not answer the question?
How did sin get there?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Problem is, on your side of it, from my atheistic perspective I would also find it inconsistent and self-contradictory. Because if God is fully sovereign and in control of everything, then that would conflict with his goodness (see: "puppetmaster, evil"). I don't buy the potter and the clay example as being particularly moral.


How does His sovereignty contradict His goodness?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't buy the potter and the clay example as being particularly moral.


From atheism, you don't have the philosophical or moral grounds to call ANYTHING good or evil.  Your objection is worthless.

----------


## Terry1

> It was not God's will that Adam partake of the forbidden tree.
> 
> However, God knowing that a created being could not ever remain as holy as He, created with salvation already decreed according to the sacrifice and grace of His Son, so that these helpless creatures might find access through Him to everlasting life.
> 
> Look at the BIG picture of the ordained purposes of God to understand biblical history . . . please!!!


Nang, God didn't ordain that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit.  They were tempted, they gave in and disobeyed God.  Once they did this--then and only then did they know they were naked and became like God--knowing the difference between good and evil.  Before they ate the fruit--they had no knowledge of such things.

Then God tossed them out of the garden for what they'd done and placed a guard around the tree of life so they wouldn't run over there and eat it then obtaining eternal life.  Adam and Eve weren't too bright.  Adam chose to sin--God didn't make him sin--hence the fall of mankind.

Genesis 3:
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 

24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

----------


## Nang

> Sorry no,, Satan was cast to earth.. He resides here still. He Rules this world,,for the most part.. With a strong desire to Rule all of it directly.


It is my amillennial belief, that since the cross, Satan has been bound in the bottomless pit.  Revelation 20:1-3






> He is judged,,and he is worthy of destruction.. But that has not happened yet,,that is the End of the Book.



Agreed.




> Adam sinned and is worthy of judgement.


Agreed.




> Of Mortality. yes,, Knowledge,,not so much. But yes,,all men were corrupted by sin.


Indeed.  





> And some have chosen to seek God from the beginning,, and the promise of salvation from sin.


I do not believe any sinner ever "seeks God" . . . but I believe God from the beginning has saved sinners by gifting many with faith to believe His promises of the Savior who would remove their sins and give them everlasting life.  (Hebrews Chapter 11)





> To the crimes of Lucifer and his followers.


O.K.  Satanic crimes of hatefulness, deceit, and desire to test with the desire to do harm to the sons of God.  With that , I agree.

----------


## moostraks

> What is this "Calvinism" stuff?
> 
> The Holy Spirit indwelling is anyone's only guide to understanding the Words of God.





> t if they try to do so, and if they arrive at conclusions different than those of the church they belong to—an easy task considering the number of different theological issues—then they will quickly discover that their right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation. Protestant pastors have long realized (in fact, Luther and Calvin realized it) that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to preach, they must prohibit the exercise of this right in practice for others, lest the group be torn apart by strife and finally break up. It is the failure of the prohibition of the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia.
> 
> The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants? Must baptism be by immersion only? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government?) is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura.
> 
> However, there is a whole set of practical presuppositions that the doctrine of sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine, but a fatal blow to it. Sola scriptura simply cannot be God's plan for Christian theology.
> 
> In fact, it could never even have been thought to be God's plan
> 
> before a certain stage in European history because, as we will see, it could have only arisen after a certain technological development which was unknown in the ancient world. Before that one development, nobody would have ever thought that sola scriptura could be the principle God intended people to use, meaning it was no accident that the Reformation occurred when it did...
> ...


http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRACTICL.htm

Some points to consider for those who have ears to hear...

----------


## Crashland

> How does His sovereignty contradict His goodness?


For the same reason that everyone from the arminianism camp is already explaining.
Creating two living souls for the purpose of having them both be hopelessly corrupted, and then destroying one and saving the other so that the one that was saved would know how precious the grace is.... is not moral.

----------


## Nang

> No. Sin was in the world at creation. 5 mins one way or the other makes little difference.
> 
> There was no Law until it was given. The Laws was at creation..(don't eat of the tree) and sin was there before the Law.
> 
> You did not answer the question?
> How did sin get there?


I don't see sin imputed before the Law was broken . . .

Where do you see sin in the creation that was declared all good, before Adam broke God's commands?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> From atheism, you don't have the philosophical or moral grounds to call ANYTHING good or evil.  Your objection is worthless.


But it was worth replying to.   lol

----------


## Sola_Fide

> For the same reason that everyone from the arminianism camp is already explaining.
> Creating two living souls for the purpose of having them both be hopelessly corrupted, and then destroying one and saving the other so that the one that was saved would know how precious the grace is.... is not moral.


It's not .....moral?  

Why?

----------


## Crashland

> From atheism, you don't have the philosophical or moral grounds to call ANYTHING good or evil.  Your objection is worthless.


Sure, I can roll with that. I am basing my morality subjectively. It is my own opinion. Not really sure why that makes it worthless, though.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nang, God didn't ordain that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit.  *They were tempted, they gave in and disobeyed God.*  Once they did this--then and only then did they know they were naked and became like God--knowing the difference between good and evil.  Before they ate the fruit--they had no knowledge of such things.
> 
> Then God tossed them out of the garden for what they'd done and placed a guard around the tree of life so they wouldn't run over there and eat it then obtaining eternal life.  Adam and Eve weren't too bright.  Adam chose to sin--God didn't make him sin--hence the fall of mankind.
> 
> Genesis 3:
> 22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 
> 
> 24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


More accurately, Eve took the bait and tricked Adam into it as well.  WAROAE! (Women Are the Root Of All Evil!)

----------


## Terry1

> O.K.  Will do that, sweetie . . .


Otay sugar plum.

----------


## Nang

> More accurately, Eve took the bait and tricked Adam into it as well.  WAROAE! (Women Are the Root Of All Evil!)



Does such (unbiblical) assessment apply to your own mother?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sure, I can roll with that. I am basing my morality subjectively. It is my own opinion. Not really sure why that makes it worthless, though.


Subjectively?  Then who cares what you say?  Your subjective opinion means nothing to another's subjective opinion.  

Why did you raise an objection like you had a reason to call anything immoral?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> More accurately, Eve took the bait and tricked Adam into it as well.  WAROAE! (Women Are the Root Of All Evil!)


That was uncalled for and not funny.

----------


## Crashland

> It's not .....moral?  
> 
> Why?


Would you consider it moral if it happened in real life? Go back to the analogy we had earlier:
2 prisoners on death row, both guilty of the same crime. Judge comes and arbitrarily elects one to be sent to the gallows, and elects the other to be released, so that the one who was saved would somehow appreciate it more. That is justice?

----------


## Terry1

> More accurately, Eve took the bait and tricked Adam into it as well.  WAROAE! (Women Are the Root Of All Evil!)


Yeah---remind me to slap the hell out of Eve when and if I make to heaven for giving me all those years of monthly cramps.  And how stupid was Adam to listen to Eve in the first place.  That's why men were cursed with cranky wimmin folk.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Subjectively?  Then who cares what you say?  Your subjective opinion means nothing to another's subjective opinion.  
> 
> Why did you raise an objection like you had a reason to call anything immoral?


Maybe I read his post and find I agree with him.  So there's a reason.

Actually, I still don't get the reason Sola Fide continues these rant posts if everything is predestined anyway.

----------


## Crashland

> Subjectively?  Then who cares what you say?  Your subjective opinion means nothing to another's subjective opinion.  
> 
> Why did you raise an objection like you had a reason to call anything immoral?


On the contrary, I think it is very important to consider other subjective opinions. There are plenty of reasons to consider something moral or immoral without having to look it up in a holy text. This is really not particularly relevant to the topic at hand though, you should do some research into different moral constructions.

----------


## Nang

> Would you consider it moral if it happened in real life? Go back to the analogy we had earlier:
> 2 prisoners on death row, both guilty of the same crime. Judge comes and arbitrarily elects one to be sent to the gallows, and elects the other to be released, so that the one who was saved would somehow appreciate it more. That is justice?


A better analogy:

There is an orphanage full of homeless children, but a man chooses to adopt one, and give him his name and wealth.

Is it immoral he does not adopt all?

If you think so, you have fallen prey to the logic of Universalism, which is totally subjective and an unbiblical conception of the Gospel of Grace.

----------


## Terry1

> That was uncalled for and not funny.


I thought it was amusing, but then I have a sense of humor too.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

AV 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 2 prisoners on death row, both guilty of the same crime. Judge comes and arbitrarily elects one to be sent to the gallows, and elects the other to be released, so that the one who was saved would somehow appreciate it more. That is justice?


No, that is not justice.  That is _mercy_.

Both criminals are dead men walking.  Both _justly_ deserve to die and have been sentenced to death.    

But the Judge has a Son. And this Judge's Son is a perfect Man.  He can bear the penalty due to another man, because He has never done anything wrong.  And the Judge, out of His unbelievable and unsearchable mercy, orders His Son to stand in the place of one of those evil criminals, and receive all the punishment due to that criminal.

That is the sovereign mercy of the Lord.

----------


## Crashland

> A better analogy:
> 
> There is an orphanage full of homeless children, but a man chooses to adopt one, and give him his name and wealth.
> 
> Is it immoral he does not adopt all?
> 
> If you think so, you have fallen into the logic of Universalism, which is totally subjective and an unbiblical conception of the Gospel of Grace.


It would be immoral if he was the one who predestined them to be in the orphanage to begin with, and if he had full power to adopt all of them with a mere word.

----------


## pcosmar

> It is my amillennial belief, that since the cross, Satan has been bound in the bottomless pit.  Revelation 20:1-3



OK,, I disagree,, but let that slide till later.





> I do not believe any sinner ever "seeks God" . . .


Read Job.He is a witness.



> Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.…

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 2 prisoners on death row, both guilty of the same crime. Judge comes and arbitrarily elects one to be sent to the gallows, and elects the other to be released, so that the one who was saved would somehow appreciate it more. That is justice?


No, that is not justice.  That is _mercy_.

Both criminals are dead men walking.  Both _justly_ deserve to die and have been sentenced to death.    

But the Judge has a Son. And this Judge's Son is a perfect Man.  He can bear the penalty due to another man, because He has never done anything wrong.  And the Judge, out of His unbelievable and unsearchable mercy, orders His Son to stand in the place of one of those evil criminals, and receive all the punishment due to that criminal.

That is the sovereign mercy of the Lord...

----------


## robert68

> I think our simple minds just can't understand all of the different qualities of God that are explained in the Bible, that may seem to be contradictory.  It seems contradictory to us, but if we had God's wisdom it would make perfect sense.


By that logic it's pointless to ever to discuss "God". “God” can’t be discussed or debated without the implications of its defining attributes being involved.

----------


## Crashland

> No, that is not justice.  That is _mercy_.
> 
> Both criminals are dead men walking.  Both _justly_ deserve to die and have been sentenced to death.    
> 
> But the Judge has a Son. And this Judge's Son is a perfect Man.  He can bear the penalty due to another man, because He has never done anything wrong.  And the Judge, out of His unbelievable and unsearchable mercy, orders His Son to stand in the place of one of those evil criminals, and receive all the punishment due to that criminal.
> 
> That is the sovereign mercy of the Lord.


When mercy is applied on an arbitrary basis I wouldn't consider that a good thing.
God predestines both people to go into the wrong building and they end up trapped when the building catches fire. Then God elects to only save one of them and let the other one die. It would be perfectly moral if he were only playing with non-living toy soldiers.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> A better analogy:
> 
> There is an orphanage full of homeless children, but a man chooses to adopt one, and give him his name and wealth.
> 
> Is it immoral he does not adopt all?
> 
> If you think so, you have fallen prey to the logic of Universalism, which is totally subjective and an unbiblical conception of the Gospel of Grace.


and afterward he sets the orphanage on fire, burning all the kids inside, while making his adopted son watch to appreciate not being one of them?  That's kind of how this is coming off to some of us.

----------


## pcosmar

> That is the sovereign mercy of the Lord...


Yes,, there is a balance between justice and mercy,, and mercy has been a defining action from the first sin,, From that point there was a promise of salvation,,
leading up to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Though being wholly capable of judging Balances Justice with mercy.

It goes to what kind of guy he is,,, and I don't believe he is manipulating,, us or making us to be destroyed.

But I do believe that it requires our choice.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When mercy is applied on an arbitrary basis I wouldn't consider that a good thing.
> God predestines both people to go into the wrong building and they end up trapped when the building catches fire. Then God elects to only save one of them and let the other one die. It would be perfectly moral if he were only playing with non-living toy soldiers.





> *Romans 9:15-16
> What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 
> 
> For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 
> 
> It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 
> *


Nothing that the Creator does can be arbitrary, and nothing the Holy Lord of the universe does can be unjust.  

The criminals who are sentenced, get what they deserve.  The criminals who get mercy get what they de-deserve.

----------


## Crashland

> and afterward he sets the orphanage on fire, burning all the kids inside, while making his adopted son watch to appreciate not being one of them?  That's kind of how this is coming off to some of us.


dat mental image

----------


## VIDEODROME

> That is the sovereign mercy of the Lord...


The Lord is kind of a dick

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There are some who say that it's we, not God, who determined some of the things that make us different from each other.


Yes, Erowe1.  And this thread is full of people who are *still* saying the Potter has no hands, either implicitly or explicitly.

Woe to those who are doing this.

----------


## Crashland

> Nothing that the Creator does can be arbitrary, and nothing the Holy Lord of the universe does can be unjust.  
> 
> The criminals who are sentenced, get what they deserve.  The criminals who get mercy get what they de-deserve.


If it is not arbitrary, may I ask what is the method God uses to determine on whom he will apply mercy?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Lord is kind of a dick


You are a sinner who deserves Hell for all eternity for your sin.  What argument do you have against the holy Judge who you have spit on, degraded, murdered, raped, and defiled?  

What is missing from your entire thinking here?  _It is that you are a sinner, and your sin has placed you under God's wrath._  You deserve this wrath forever.  THAT is what you are missing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If it is not arbitrary, may I ask what is the method God uses to determine on whom he will apply mercy?


The Lord chooses His elect based on the counsel of His will:




> *Ephesians 1:11
> 
> In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
> *

----------


## Crashland

> You are a sinner who deserves Hell for all eternity for your sin.  What argument do you have against the holy Judge who you have spit on, degraded, murdered, raped, and defiled?  
> 
> What is missing from your entire thinking here?  _It is that you are a sinner, and your sin has placed you under God's wrath._  You deserve this wrath forever.  THAT is what you are missing.


If he is going to hell and you are going to heaven, don't you think you should be a little nicer? It would be like verbally chastising someone on their deathbed.

----------


## Crashland

> The Lord chooses His elect based on the counsel of His will:


So he chooses them because of his will. Okay, you convinced me. Totally not arbitrary.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If he is going to hell and you are going to heaven, don't you think you should be a little nicer? It would be like verbally chastising someone on their deathbed.


Sinners need to hear the bad, bad, news.  This is the nicest thing that I could ever do for him.

----------


## pcosmar

> The Lord is kind of a dick


Not the One I know,, At least not how I know him.

----------


## Terry1

> You are a sinner who deserves Hell for all eternity for your sin.  What argument do you have against the holy Judge who you have spit on, degraded, murdered, raped, and defiled?  
> 
> What is missing from your entire thinking here?  _It is that you are a sinner, and your sin has placed you under God's wrath._  You deserve this wrath forever.  THAT is what you are missing.


No Sola--this is how people who don't believe in God will react and respond to your version of who God is and you in particular.  Your version of God makes people want to run as far as they can get from Him.  Thankfully--your version is not who God is.

----------


## pcosmar

> Sinners need to hear the bad, bad, news.  This is the nicest thing that I could ever do for him.


Wrong...
They need to hear the Good News,, (Gospel) The bad news is quite evident.

OH, And you never answered the question.  
Can God Change His Mind.?

----------


## Nang

> and afterward he sets the orphanage on fire, burning all the kids inside, while making his adopted son watch to appreciate not being one of them?  That's kind of how this is coming off to some of us.


I know that is how you take it, but *the human responsibility* of the human creature, made in the image of God, *is to believe in His goodness* in all things . . . it is sin to question the holiness and good purposes of your Maker.

There is no way to avoid the reality of wickedness.  There is no way to deny the universal sinfulness of mankind.  It is hopeless to argue against the fact that we all face death.

Blaming God for any of the above is gross sin, for God alone is holy and good.

Jesus Christ believed and obeyed the Father unto death, for our sake.  There is no reason to make negative excuses to ignore that gospel truth.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wrong...
> They need to hear the Good News,, (Gospel) The bad news is quite evident.
> 
> OH, And you never answered the question.  
> Can God Change His Mind.?



Wrong.

The good news STARTS with the very bad news.

What do you think the gospel is if it is not _something to be saved from?_  Why do people need to be saved?  What are they saved from?

It makes absolutely no sense to leave out what people are saved from.

----------


## Nang

> The Lord is kind of a dick


This is a really horrible thing to post and reveal from your heart.  

And I am sure your conscience is already telling you so . . .

Repent.

----------


## Terry1

> You can call me any name you want Terry, but as the title of this thread says, "Woe to you."


Thank you.

----------


## Crashland

> I know that is how you take it, but *the human responsibility* of the human creature, made in the image of God, *is to believe in His goodness* in all things . . . it is sin to question the holiness and good purposes of your Maker.


It is a responsibility to believe something? But belief is not a choice. If I am standing at the edge of the roof of a building, I would not be able to "choose" to believe that I won't fall if I step off, unless there was some kind of *really* convincing evidence for that claim that would convince me otherwise. Similarly, if one is simply not convinced that God is real, they can't just "choose" to believe in God and his goodness. It isn't possible.

----------


## otherone

> Well... the idea that someone would go through the trouble to intentionally make flawed pots and break them seems odd.  Or maybe this is a weak metaphor.


I'd like to know what a "glory" pot is...

----------


## pcosmar

The conviction of the Holy spirit makes the bad known.. Man in sin knows it. Death is feared.

People have to hear the Good News for salvation.



> for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"…


Preach the Gospel (Good News)




> * How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?*

----------


## Terry1

> Wrong.
> 
> The good news STARTS with the very bad news.
> 
> What do you think the gospel is if it is not _something to be saved from?_  Why do people need to be saved?  What are they saved from?
> 
> It makes absolutely no sense to leave out what people are saved from.


And your good news is that if God hasn't chosen them that they're just screwed eternally.  Wow--where do I sign up for this gig?

----------


## Nang

> Thank you.



Ha!

This is the tactic taught to JW's to handle rejection at peoples' front doors.

They are trained to always express thanks, blessings, and peace, regardless.  By all means, they must strive to appear holier than those who
would dare to refuse to believe their false message.


But God is not mocked.  He knows all the tricks of the human heart, and protects His
church from all such hypocrisy!

----------


## Crashland

> And your good news is that if God hasn't chosen them that they're just screwed eternally.  Wow--where do I sign up for this gig?


The sanctuary is up the stairs, to the left.

----------


## Terry1

> Ha!
> 
> This is the tactic taught to JW's to handle rejection at peoples' front doors.
> 
> They are trained to always express thanks, blessings, and peace, regardless.  By all means, they must strive to appear holier than those who
> would dare to refuse to believe their false message.
> 
> 
> But God is not mocked.  He knows all the tricks of the human heart, and protects His
> church from all such hypocrisy!


Thank you Nang.

----------


## otherone

> The punishment of the wicked glorifies the _justice_ of God.


Aren't we ALL wicked?

----------


## Terry1

> Aren't we ALL wicked?


You should see me in the morning without my first cup of coffee--whooee!  Yeah--I'm wicked.

----------


## pcosmar

Can God Change His Mind?

----------


## Crashland

> Aren't we ALL wicked?


Good point. Punishing everyone would glorify God even more. But so would saving them all, because that glorifies God as well. But actually not it has to be kind of a balance, but tipped bigtime in favor of punishment for most people in human history.

----------


## Terry1

> Can God Change His Mind?


Yes.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Aren't we ALL wicked?


Yes.  By nature, we all deserve wrath.  But God, in His mercy, predestined some to eternal life:




> *Ephesians 2:3-5
> 
> Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. 
> *

----------


## Nang

> It is a responsibility to believe something? But belief is not a choice. If I am standing at the edge of the roof of a building, I would not be able to "choose" to believe that I won't fall if I step off, unless there was some kind of *really* convincing evidence for that claim that would convince me otherwise. Similarly, if one is simply not convinced that God is real, they can't just "choose" to believe in God and his goodness. It isn't possible.


Right.

Only God chooses which hearts and minds he will regenerate and change and enable to believe the gospel.

Upon hearing this biblical fact, the elect of God will be drawn to respond in faith and belief.  The non-elect will
simply remain unbelieving, unconvinced, and unbelieving.  John 3:18

So do not think I post anything to persuade you to believe in God.  I cannot do that.

All I can do is post my witness as to how the grace of God changed my hard heart and corrupted mind to believe.

 Only God the Holy Spirit
is commissioned to convince and convict sinners of righteousness, and he does so through the testimony of those already
saved and reconciled to God.  (John 16:8-15)

Will you test God and throw yourself off the precipice, or will you cry out admitting your need of faith to believe that is contingent upon his mercy and grace?

How you respond is in His hands. . .

----------


## Nang

> Can God Change His Mind?


No.

God is immutable.

----------


## moostraks

> Right.
> 
> Only God chooses which hearts and minds he will regenerate and change and enable to believe the gospel.
> 
> Upon hearing this biblical, fact the elect of God will be drawn to respond in faith and belief.  The non-elect will
> simply remain condemned and unbelieving.
> 
> So do not think I post anything to persuade you to believe in God.  I cannot do that.
> 
> ...


Aren't there supposed to be fruits involved when ascertaining when one is a chosen person?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Aren't there supposed to be fruits involved when ascertaining when one is a chosen person?


That's what I was going to ask.  What if Sola wasn't predestined?  Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

----------


## Terry1

> Right.
> 
> Only God chooses which hearts and minds he will regenerate and change and enable to believe the gospel.
> 
> Upon hearing this biblical, fact the elect of God will be drawn to respond in faith and belief.  The non-elect will
> simply remain condemned and unbelieving.
> 
> So do not think I post anything to persuade you to believe in God.  I cannot do that.
> 
> ...


So how does God know who to pick and choose Nang?

----------


## pcosmar

> No.
> 
> God is immutable.


Really,, Guess again..




> So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
>  Exodus 32:14

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can God Change His Mind?


No.




> * Numbers 23:19
> 
> God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.*

----------


## Nang

> So how does God know who to pick and choose Nang?


I have no idea.

----------


## Theocrat

> Wrong.
> 
> The good news STARTS with the very bad news.
> 
> What do you think the gospel is if it is not _something to be saved from?_  Why do people need to be saved?  What are they saved from?
> 
> It makes absolutely no sense to leave out what people are saved from.


It reminds me of this song:

----------


## pcosmar

> That's what I was going to ask.  What if Sola wasn't predestined?  Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


He would be asking "why have you made me such?".

----------


## Nang

> Really,, Guess again..



"Relenting" from immediate judgment, never means nullification of eventual judgment.

----------


## Deborah K

> No.


Is this opinion?  Is it Biblical?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Aren't there supposed to be fruits involved when ascertaining when one is a chosen person?


The most immediate fruit of regeneration is BELIEVING THE GOSPEL.  If you don't have that fruit, it doesn't matter how nice and sweet you are.

----------


## Crashland

> Right.
> 
> Only God chooses which hearts and minds he will regenerate and change and enable to believe the gospel.
> 
> Upon hearing this biblical, fact the elect of God will be drawn to respond in faith and belief.  The non-elect will
> simply remain condemned and unbelieving.
> 
> So do not think I post anything to persuade you to believe in God.  I cannot do that.
> 
> ...


Already tried it. I believed in God for a long time, then when I had doubts I tried painstakingly for many years to keep faith.
In the spirit of:
Mark 9:24 the man asks Jesus to "help me with my unbelief"
James 4:8 "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you".
Psalm 34:8 "Taste and see that the Lord is good"
Revelation 3:20 "I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person"

Great sounding promises, but in my experience, God did not follow through on them. There was a limit to how much I was going to let myself agonize over it though so I have just accepted the fact that I don't believe it anymore.

----------


## moostraks

> Aren't there supposed to be fruits involved when ascertaining when one is a chosen person?


There is this:
Galatians 5:A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough. 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty...
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself.[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other...
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

----------


## Deborah K

What about Job?  What about the fact that he let Satan convince him to go after Job?

----------


## pcosmar

> No.


Yes.
 Exodus 32:14

You don't know the mind of God and he will change his mind if he wishes.

He can,, he doesn't often. But he can and has.




> "I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.






> When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand."





> And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand."

----------


## moostraks

> The most immediate fruit of regeneration is BELIEVING THE GOSPEL.  If you don't have that fruit, it doesn't matter how nice and sweet you are.


1 Corinthians 13
New International Version (NIV)
13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

----------


## otherone

> If everything man does is within the sovereign will of God, and man has sinned, then it is part of God's sovereign will for his commandments to have been broken.


Someone had mentioned the other day that God commanded us KNOWING that we could not comply.  But, hey, we're just pots, so whatever.

----------


## pcosmar

> What about Job?  What about the fact that he let Satan convince him to go after Job?


A Trial. 

Actually there is a great deal in the Book Of Job.




> 1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. 2 He had seven sons and three daughters, 3 and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.
> 
> 4 His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.
> 
> 6 One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
> 
> Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
> 
> 8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
> ...

----------


## Dr.3D

> No.
> 
> God is immutable.


That's right....



> *Malachi 3:6*   For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished. _NRS_

----------


## Nang

> Already tried it. I believed in God for a long time, then when I had doubts I tried painstakingly for many years to keep faith.
> In the spirit of:
> Mark 9:24 the man asks Jesus to "help me with my unbelief"
> James 4:8 "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you".
> Psalm 34:8 "Taste and see that the Lord is good"
> Revelation 3:20 "I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person"
> 
> Great sounding promises, but in my experience, God did not follow through on them. There was a limit to how much I was going to let myself agonize over it though so I have just accepted the fact that I don't believe it anymore.


Sounds to me like you were under the influence of some kind of works-righteousness preaching.

The New Covenant is one of grace, totally performed by Jesus Christ.  No conditions contingent upon the performance of man.

His saving grace is free.  Faith to believe in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, rather than our own good works, is a gift.  Romans 8:8-17

----------


## otherone

> I think our simple minds just can't understand all of the different qualities of God that are explained in the Bible, that may seem to be contradictory.  It seems contradictory to us, but if we had God's wisdom it would make perfect sense.


Is the bible a diary, or written for men?

----------


## pcosmar

> Is the bible a diary, or written for men?


Owners manual and maintenance.

----------


## Crashland

> Sounds to me like you were under the influence of some kind of works-righteousness preaching.
> 
> The New Covenant is one of grace, totally performed by Jesus Christ.  No conditions contingent upon the performance of man.
> 
> His saving grace is free.  Faith to believe in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, rather than our own good works, is a gift.  Romans 8:8-17


No, by grace not by works. But if you do not believe then from what I understand that is evidence that you have not received that gift.
I do agree though with the current evidence I have available to me right now, it would indeed probably take an act of God for me to believe.

----------


## Nang

> No, by grace not by works. But if you do not believe then from what I understand that is evidence that you have not received that gift.
> I do agree though with the current evidence I have available to me right now, it would indeed probably take an act of God for me to believe.


If you do not object, I will pray and beg for that act of God on your behalf.

----------


## pcosmar

> it would indeed probably take an act of God for me to believe.


It always does..

----------


## Deborah K

Then the Lord said to Samuel, "I am sorry that I made Saul King, for he has again refused to obey me."  Samuel 15: 10-11

This speaks to the Lord having regrets for his decision, and it speaks to man having free will.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ha!
> 
> This is the tactic taught to JW's to handle rejection at peoples' front doors.
> 
> They are trained to always express thanks, blessings, and peace, regardless.  By all means, they must strive to appear holier than those who
> would dare to refuse to believe their false message.
> 
> 
> But God is not mocked.  He knows all the tricks of the human heart, and protects His
> church from all such hypocrisy!





> Thank you Nang.



That is very telling.

----------


## Nang

> Then the Lord said to Samuel, "I am sorry that I made Saul King, for he has again refused to obey me."  Samuel 15: 10-11
> 
> This speaks to the Lord having regrets for his decision, and it speaks to man having free will.



Are you an Open Theist?

This is their exact argument . . .

----------


## otherone

> Problem is, on your side of it, from my atheistic perspective I would also find it inconsistent and self-contradictory. Because if God is fully sovereign and in control of everything, then that would conflict with his goodness (see: "puppetmaster, evil"). I don't buy the potter and the clay example as being particularly moral.


I don't think it's a question of morality, rather a question of objective.  The whole ordeal sounds convoluted and pointless, unless, of course, you view it from man's perspective (suspiciously enough).  I don't see what's in it for God, other than a bunch of broken pots and just a few sweet, special pots.  What's the point?  Smashing pots?

----------


## Crashland

> If you do not object, I will pray and beg for that act of God on your behalf.


If what you believe is really the truth I would certainly hope that happens. So you are welcome to do so.

----------


## Deborah K

> A Trial. 
> 
> Actually there is a great deal in the Book Of Job.


Yeah, there is.  For one, God allows Satan to convince him to torment Job.  He started off having a conversation with Satan and showing great pride in Job's decisions to reject all evil.

----------


## Deborah K

> Are you an Open Theist?
> 
> This is their exact argument . . .


Whatever I am, Nang, you will consider it an abomination I'm sure.

----------


## otherone

> The Lord is kind of a dick



WELCOME TO CHRISTIANITY, MY CHILD!

----------


## moostraks

> No, by grace not by works. But if you do not believe then from what I understand that is evidence that you have not received that gift.
> I do agree though with the current evidence I have available to me right now, it would indeed probably take an act of God for me to believe.


Sorry about your experience. I went through something similar. I had to detox from all the hate and pride I saw. I went to something closer to my ancestral roots, and then reached a point where I can be more open minded about the Bible. I had to first learn to let go of everything and wipe the slate clean. It is why I find the angry, wrathful preaching so annoying and detrimental.

----------


## Nang

> Whatever I am, Nang, you will consider it an abomination I'm sure.



So you do not deny being Open Theist?

----------


## Crashland

> Sorry about your experience. I went through something similar. I had to detox from all the hate and pride I saw. I went to something closer to my ancestral roots, and then reached a point where I can be more open minded about the Bible. I had to first learn to let go of everything and wipe the slate clean. It is why I find the angry, wrathful preaching so annoying and detrimental.


I can understand it though because I came from it. Even though I don't like it, I kind of have a soft spot for it because I can identify.

How would you classify your current beliefs?

----------


## Deborah K

> So you do not deny being Open Theist?


Actually I do deny it.  Don't they think God isn't in control of the future or something to that effect?  I don't believe that.  I believe we have free will because he allows it. But I also believe he has a plan. So now, go ahead and label me.

----------


## pcosmar

> So you do not deny being Open Theist?


Why does that sound so much like the inquisition?

----------


## Deborah K

> WELCOME TO CHRISTIANITY, MY CHILD!


That isn't fair.  Not all of us believe the way the reformed whatevers believe.

----------


## moostraks

> I can understand it though because I came from it. Even though I don't like it, I kind of have a soft spot for it because I can identify.
> 
> How would you classify your current beliefs?


Probably closest to Quakers. I think there is enormous wisdom from the Orthodox Church but I have specific hang ups that would, at least for any foreseeable future, prevent me from joining.

----------


## otherone

> Yes.  By nature, we all deserve wrath.  But God, in His mercy, predestined some to eternal life:


How is that "just"?

----------


## Theocrat

> The Lord is kind of a dick


The irony of your reply is that it validates exactly the kinds of people that God was pronouncing His woes unto, in the passage of the OP.

----------


## Nang

> Actually I do deny it.  Don't they think God isn't in control of the future or something to that effect?  I don't believe that.  I believe we have free will because he allows it. But I also believe he has a plan. So now, go ahead and label me.


You are way too defensive . . . I am pleased you deny this belief, for it is bad teaching, in that they take "free will" to a radical extreme by claiming God does not know the future, because He does not know what men will do next!

And I have no desire to "label" you.  I have only asked you what you believed, in the simple attempt to understand and communicate better with you, and hopefully to relieve some of the estrangement that has developed between us.

----------


## otherone

> That isn't fair.  Not all of us believe the way the reformed whatevers believe.


From what I've been reading here, you and your ilk, Deb, aren't _actually_ Christians, as your deity is more inclined to love and forgiveness rather than wrath and arbitrary damnation.

----------


## Deborah K

> You are way too defensive . . . I am pleased you deny this belief, for it is bad teaching, in that they take "free will" to a radical extreme by claiming God does not know the future, because He does not know what men will do next!
> 
> And I have no desire to "label" you.  I have only asked you what you believed, in the simple attempt to understand and communicate better with you, and hopefully to relieve some of the estrangement that has developed between us.


Very happy to hear it, Nang.

----------


## Deborah K

> From what I've been reading here, you and your ilk, Deb, aren't _actually_ Christians, as your deity is more inclined to love and forgiveness rather than wrath and arbitrary damnation.


Yes, that's what they believe.  It doesn't make it so.

----------


## otherone

> Why does that sound so much like the inquisition?


Don't take it so harshly.  Some debaters need to create labels when preparing "No True Scotsman" fallacies.

----------


## pcosmar

> So you do not deny being Open Theist?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> You are a sinner who deserves Hell for all eternity for your sin.  What argument do you have against the holy Judge who you have spit on, degraded, murdered, raped, and defiled?  
> 
> What is missing from your entire thinking here?  _It is that you are a sinner, and your sin has placed you under God's wrath._  You deserve this wrath forever.  THAT is what you are missing.


holy $#@! dude.  

Eternal punishment is so over the top.  Nobody deserves to punished and tortured forever.  

Anyway according to what you're saying, is was God who put me where I am.  Are you here to change God's plan?

----------


## Crashland

> holy $#@! dude.  
> 
> Eternal punishment is so over the top.  Nobody deserves to punished and tortured forever.  
> 
> Anyway according to what you're saying, is was God who put me where I am.  Are you here to change God's plan?


Yes, having an eternal punishment for temporary crimes is a whole separate matter. I mean, the sins we have committed in this mere 80 years on this planet? God's punishment for that =
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00  0,000,000,000 years in hell. And that's just the beginning. Justice!

----------


## Theocrat

> From what I've been reading here, you and your ilk, Deb, aren't _actually_ Christians, as your deity is more inclined to love and forgiveness rather than wrath and arbitrary damnation.


Otherone, actually God reveals Himself in all of His attributes, not just the ones that we commonly feel comfortable with (like His love, grace, mercy, etc.). Even diehard atheists can recognize certain passages in the Bible where God is doing some "pretty nasty things," as they would put it. In those passages, we can see clearly that God is demonstrating His anger, wrath, and justice, too. Whether you like to hear this or not, those attributes are one of the reasons why God is to be feared. One of the problems with modern, evangelical Christianity is that it often portrays this "Pollyanna" notion of God, or a "hippie Jesus," that loves so promiscuously that He never cares about sin, nor does He ever do anything about it.

The result of that is it brings God down to a "buddy-buddy" level, so much so that Christians think they can keep on living in sin because God is "too loving, too cool, or too laid back" to do anything about it. Yet, in Scripture, we find that God has no problem with pouring out His wrath and judgment upon people and nations when they take advantage of His love, grace, and mercy. Calvinists, at least, are willing to grant that the Bible shows that side of God and honors the fact that God wants us to know that He is *equally* loving, gracious, and merciful while simultaneously being angry, wroth, and just towards sin and His enemies.

----------


## otherone

> holy $#@! dude.  
> 
> Eternal punishment is so over the top.  Nobody deserves to punished and tortured forever.  
> 
> Anyway according to what you're saying, is was God who put me where I am.  Are you here to change God's plan?


Sola said you raped God.  So many places I could go with that...but I'll be respectful.

----------


## otherone

> The result of that is it brings God down to a "buddy-buddy" level, so much so that Christians think they can keep on living in sin because God is "too loving, too cool, or too laid back" to do anything about it.


yeah....like that whole disgusting "Abba" thing...

----------


## otherone

> Yes, having an eternal punishment for temporary crimes is a whole separate matter. I mean, the sins we have committed in this mere 80 years on this planet? God's punishment for that =
> 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00  0,000,000,000 years in hell. And that's just the beginning. Justice!


You weren't paying attention.  You aren't damned for what you've done, you are damned for what you ARE.  That's the "Good News".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> holy $#@! dude.  
> 
> Eternal punishment is so over the top.  Nobody deserves to punished and tortured forever.  
> 
> Anyway according to what you're saying, is was God who put me where I am.  Are you here to change God's plan?



No it isn't over the top.  That is how serious sin is.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sola denies Free Will. It is a Cornerstone issue. There is either Free Will or there is not.
> 
> I believe that there is,,and am convinced that Free Will is the whole purpose of this creation. 
> 
> I believe that God desires a people that will love and serve him,, Not because they are made to,, but because they choose to.
> So yes,, it is a cornerstone issue.
> 
> With no Free Will we are  not free. We are not free to worship. Without Free Will,, we are made to Sin or we are made to worship.
> either, We are made to,, or we are free to. There is no other middle ground.


And *that* is why resistance to tyranny is obediance to God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And *that* is why restinace to tyranny is obediance to God.


First, that expression became popular with Calvinists who were objecting to Papal tyranny.

Secondly,  free will is the BASIS for coercion and tyranny.  It is the idea of predestination which is the basis for freedom.  

If men's wills cannot be swayed by anything in this life, if only God can change the will (predestination), then the state or the church philosophically would not be called upon to attempt to coerce the will.

If men's wills can be coerced by something in this world (free will), then this opens the door for coercion and tyranny.

----------


## Brett85

> That was uncalled for and not funny.


Wow, you have absolutely no sense of humor at all.  I wonder what it must be like to run across you in real life.

----------


## Brett85

> This is a really horrible thing to post and reveal from your heart.  
> 
> And I am sure your conscience is already telling you so . . .
> 
> Repent.


He was just talking about the false idol worshipped by Calvinists, not the God of the Bible.

----------


## Brett85

> Right.
> 
> Only God chooses which hearts and minds he will regenerate and change and enable to believe the gospel.
> 
> Upon hearing this biblical fact, the elect of God will be drawn to respond in faith and belief.  The non-elect will
> simply remain unbelieving, unconvinced, and unbelieving.  John 3:18
> 
> So do not think I post anything to persuade you to believe in God.  I cannot do that.
> 
> ...


Why do you even bother witnessing to people if certain people are predestined to be saved and others are predestined to go to hell?  Nothing you say will change God's decree.  Evangelism is completely unnecessary in the Calvinist theology.

----------


## fr33

> How many here believe that the Potter has no hands?  Several.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
> those who are nothing but potsherds
> ...


Then why bother arguing about anything with anybody? God created your debate opponent and gave them what they have.

Maybe because you are insecure in your ancient texts?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wow, you have absolutely no sense of humor at all.  I wonder what it must be like to run across you in real life.


I manage a large, award winning hotel in Indiana.  In real life I'm an inspirational motivator but can come across like a jerk because I hold people accountable.

----------


## Brett85

> I manage a large, award winning hotel in Indiana.  In real life I'm an inspirational motivator but can come across like a jerk because I hold people accountable.


You must be completely different in real life than you are on the internet then.  All you do on the internet is tear people down.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> To my brothers and sisters who agree with sovereign grace: 
> 
> Here is one example as to why Christianity must be defended against atheism and Arminianism in the same breath.


I'm with you, I just disagree with a few of your blanket statements.

Think about this.  You tell an atheist that there is nothing he can do to save himself, that he's a sinner that deserves to burn in Hell for all of eternity, but that Jesus Christ died to save sinners who believe.  You tell him that when a man believes, the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to his account and he is declared legally righteous on its account.  You tell him that if he believes this message, that this proves that the sacrifice was for him.  He believes it.

Two minutes later, he is asked whether he made his decision by free will.  He says he doesn't know, not immediately realizing that free will is incompatible with the gospel that he accepted above.

Is the man unsaved?  Or is he a saved man who does not yet understand all of grace alone's logical implications?

I have a hard time with the idea of a true Christian clinging to free will after they've heard the arguments.  I'd certainly tell them that they should examine themselves if they seem to be conditioning salvation on themselves in any way (and would absolutely consider them unsaved should they admit to such.)  But I don't think somebody is going to understand all of this stuff the moment they get saved, especially if they are exposed to bad teaching.  Now, of course, I'm not saying that everyone who is exposed to bad teaching is saved.  Certainly not.  Ultimately, my ROOT issue is "do they trust in Christ alone for their salvation?"  There's no consistent way to say "yes" and still cling to Arminianism, but I think its very possible  to say yes without understanding the logical conclusion that certain Arminian beliefs are heretical.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He was just talking about the false idol worshipped by Calvinists, not the God of the Bible.


This post is disgusting.  Its also "harsh" as some of you would say....




> I manage a large, award winning hotel in Indiana.  In real life I'm an inspirational motivator but can come across like a jerk because I hold people accountable.





> You must be completely different in real life than you are on the internet then.  All you do on the internet is tear people down.


Meh, I rather like SF on the internet.  But its hard to see the love and compassion that is in a person's heart over the web.

----------


## otherone

> I manage a large, award winning hotel in Indiana.  In real life I'm an inspirational motivator but _can come across like a jerk because I hold people accountable_.


As a manager?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> As a manager?


Yes.

----------


## otherone

> Yes.


What do you do for fun?

----------


## moostraks

> I manage a large, award winning hotel in Indiana.  In real life I'm an inspirational motivator but can come across like a jerk because I hold people accountable.


Most people find rudeness and arrogance is why they think someone is a jerk, especially when someone thinks they are entitled to hold another person accountable. I am curious how someone can be interested in liberty with this type of attitude unless it is merely for oneself because everyone else will be accountable to them.

----------


## moostraks

> First, that expression became popular with Calvinists who were objecting to Papal tyranny.
> 
> Secondly,  free will is the BASIS for coercion and tyranny.  It is the idea of predestination which is the basis for freedom.  
> 
> If men's wills cannot be swayed by anything in this life, if only God can change the will (predestination), then the state or the church philosophically would not be called upon to attempt to coerce the will.
> 
> If men's wills can be coerced by something in this world (free will), then this opens the door for coercion and tyranny.


This explanation makes my head hurt. All this seems to be saying is that one May subject themselves to the tyranny of another who terrorizes them into conformity such as the puritans vs. natives or puritans vs. Quakers but one never has the ability of independent thought when they interact with someone who dismisses the importance and necessity of free will. And the irony of predestination equaling God changing the Will should not be overlooked, because by this method it seems as though God is making a mistake in his initial creation of the pot in question.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What do you do for fun?


Why are people so obsessed with my personal life?  What do you do for fun?

----------


## acptulsa

> Why are people so obsessed with my personal life?


Why do you come here?  Besides to pay lip service to the notion that you could be a part of our synergistic regurgitation (did I get that right)?  Not that I've seen any sign you want us in your little Heaven, but for argument's sake.  It's primarily so you can be seen by God and man not 'fellowshipping' with the unelected, right?  And where better to do that than Ron Paul's website, right?

So what good does it do you to be seen abrasively refusing to 'fellowship with' us if we're not having ourselves a little fellowship with each other--and trying in vain to have a little fellowship with you?

It's all part of God's plan to get you into Heaven, of course.  Why are you questioning the Potter?

Has He no hands?

Has He no hands?

Has He no hands?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Most people find rudeness and arrogance is why they think someone is a jerk, especially when someone thinks they are entitled to hold another person accountable. I am curious how someone can be interested in liberty with this type of attitude unless it is merely for oneself because everyone else will be accountable to them.


This accusation doesn't make any sense.  

If SF is a hotel manager, he'd be holding his employees accountable.  What does that have to do with opposition to liberty?

----------


## moostraks

> This accusation doesn't make any sense.  
> 
> If SF is a hotel manager, he'd be holding his employees accountable.  What does that have to do with opposition to liberty?


1-not an accusation so no need to make this a post to be paranoid and resentful. This is about ideas. It only becomes personal when one openly self labels to affirm their identity is within that ideal.
2-some folks argue they must present a message they see in the Bible to hold others accountable to the Creator 
3-those folks who think they are elected (through their own self appointment and knowledge) to hold others accountable according to their own understanding would be the ones I was referring to
4-if you don't have a problem understanding how that is detrimental to liberty for the individual after getting to #3 to understand whom I am referring to then it isn't individual liberty being discussed but tyranny by a new entity for the person being held to an accounting.

----------


## Terry1

Note to Sola, Nang and FF.  I have been generous by not reporting any of your posts that violate the guidelines in here.  This will not be the case any longer since you three feel the need to whine to the mods and Bryan for the slights of others here.  From now on, I'm letting you know--every single thing that you post that violates the guidelines--I will be reporting on the three of you.  I don't like doing this--never have, but sometimes--things do change in light of what's being said and done.

----------


## acptulsa

> Note to Sola, Nang and FF.  I have been generous by not reporting any of your posts that violate the guidelines in here.  This will not be the case any longer since you three feel the need to whine to the mods and Bryan for the slights of others here.  From now on, I'm letting you know--every single thing that you post that violates the guidelines--I will be reporting on the three of you.  I don't like doing this--never have, but sometimes--things do change in light of what's being said and done.


Oh, let's turn the other cheek instead.

Not because the sadists deserve access to yet more cheeks.  Because the _mods_ deserve mercy.

Someone wants to be seen conspicuously refusing our fellowship.  So let him.




> 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.


He wants to go brag to whatever friends he might have that he walked through the shadow of the Valley of Us and came out the other side as stubborn as ever.  Would you really deny him his reward?

----------


## pcosmar

I have never said that "the potter has no hands".

I have spoken of the nature of the Potter,, and not of his skill.

The Potter I know is not smashing pots. He is repairing the broken shards.

----------


## Terry1

> Oh, let's turn the other cheek instead.
> 
> Not because the sadists deserve access to yet more cheeks.  Because the _mods_ deserve mercy.


LOL, yes the mods do deserve mercy in light of how much whining and bickering they have to endure.  This is why I haven't bothered Bryan or the mods when someone like Nang or Sola toss an accusation at me like accusing me of being a Gnostic, ungodly or an agent of satan.  I have dealt with it on my own only then to find out that they are reporting everyone else for these slights.  I encourage everyone to do the same with these people when they violate the guidelines or rules.  Report them, because surly they are reporting you.

I've never believed in this, but I've found myself with no other recourse because they're reporting me for lessor slights than they're accusing others of themselves.  This won't be the case any longer.  This is my personal warning that I will not be as generous as I have been because it's not paying off as it should--sadly so.

----------


## moostraks

> 1-not an accusation so no need to make this a post to be paranoid and resentful. This is about ideas. It only becomes personal when one openly self labels to affirm their identity is within that ideal.
> 2-some folks argue they must present a message they see in the Bible to hold others accountable to the Creator 
> 3-those folks who think they are elected (through their own self appointment and knowledge) to hold others accountable according to their own understanding would be the ones I was referring to
> 4-if you don't have a problem understanding how that is detrimental to liberty for the individual after getting to #3 to understand whom I am referring to then it isn't individual liberty being discussed but tyranny by a new entity for the person being held to an accounting.


You start with an idea, that the individual has a personal, direct relationship with the Creator. This is an awesome idea. The problem comes in when only certain people are entitled to interpret whether the person indeed has a personal relationship with the Creator. (The only acceptable evidence that the individual does indeed possess said relationship is if it mirrors the new ruling groups identity) So the oppressors decide that they are, by their own interpretation, the voice of the Creator, commanded to pass judgement and hound another person until they silence or die. All you have done is change who terrorizes the individual. The individual never had liberty or freedom unless and until he agrees to be part of the new system.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Note to Sola, Nang and FF.  I have been generous by not reporting any of your posts that violate the guidelines in here.  This will not be the case any longer since you three feel the need to whine to the mods and Bryan for the slights of others here.  From now on, I'm letting you know--every single thing that you post that violates the guidelines--I will be reporting on the three of you.  I don't like doing this--never have, but sometimes--things do change in light of what's being said and done.


Terry, please leave me out of this.  I haven't been using the report function, for the same reason that you haven't been.  I cannot speak for Sola or Nang, but I basically never report posts.

You guys really need to get the whole "You three" thing out of your minds.  We agree some of the time and we disagree other times.  We may agree more than some others agree on theology, but there is not some kind of coordinated alliance that is out to get you.  Sola didn't consult me before he started reporting posts.  And if Nang started doing that, she didn't consult me either.

----------


## moostraks

> Oh, let's turn the other cheek instead.
> 
> Not because the sadists deserve access to yet more cheeks.  Because the _mods_ deserve mercy.


My sentiments exactly.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry, please leave me out of this.  I haven't been using the report function, for the same reason that you haven't been.  I cannot speak for Sola or Nang, but I basically never report posts.


Okay FF, thanks for letting me know.  I wasn't sure and I'm happy that you let me know.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> 1-not an accusation so no need to make this a post to be paranoid and resentful. This is about ideas. It only becomes personal when one openly self labels to affirm their identity is within that ideal.
> 2-some folks argue they must present a message they see in the Bible to hold others accountable to the Creator 
> 3-those folks who think they are elected (through their own self appointment and knowledge) to hold others accountable according to their own understanding would be the ones I was referring to
> 4-if you don't have a problem understanding how that is detrimental to liberty for the individual after getting to #3 to understand whom I am referring to then it isn't individual liberty being discussed but tyranny by a new entity for the person being held to an accounting.


OK, I don't see how even the most hateful personal comments could be described as "tyranny."  Tyranny requires, at a minimum, actual aggressive force (or the threat thereof) being  exercised against you.

----------


## moostraks

> Terry, please leave me out of this.  I haven't been using the report function, for the same reason that you haven't been.  I cannot speak for Sola or Nang, but I basically never report posts.
> 
> You guys really need to get the whole "You three" thing out of your minds.  We agree some of the time and we disagree other times.  We may agree more than some others agree on theology, but there is not some kind of coordinated alliance that is out to get you.  Sola didn't consult me before he started reporting posts.  And if Nang started doing that, she didn't consult me either.





> Okay FF, thanks for letting me know.  I wasn't sure and I'm happy that you let me know.






> 05-24-2014 03:55 PM
> FreedomFanatic
> Thread: THE CHRISTIAN CONFESSION OF FAITH
> Stop being disruptive. I flagged this one to.


Terry1 Do with it what you will. Watch your back...

Being disruptive was rebuttal to a direct set of statements that S_F and then FF opened the door on and personally put out there for discussion.

----------


## Terry1

> My sentiments exactly.


I turned the other cheek only to find that it was getting me infractions.  That's what turning the other cheek will do in here.  They will report you for slights and ignore their own.  If we don't report them--they will continue on this path.  Report them.

----------


## Terry1

> Terry1 Do with it what you will. Watch your back...
> 
> Being disruptive was rebuttal to a direct set of statements that S_F and then FF opened the door on and personally put out there for discussion.


Yep, thanks moos.  I know--I am going to watch my back from here on out.  I've tried to be fair and generous and we see where it's got me.  No more--I'm going to be a lot more careful and watch every move they make from here on out.  Silly me---here I thought being generous with them would be a good thing.

----------


## moostraks

> OK, I don't see how even the most hateful personal comments could be described as "tyranny."  Tyranny requires, at a minimum, actual aggressive force (or the threat thereof) being  exercised against you.


Tyranny only requires the ability and opportunity.

Verbally abusive people are destructive to those whom they have ability to harm. They seek out targets and viciously hound them until they break the victim's spirit and force them to conform. One thing it shows about the verbal abuser is that they are a slave of the flesh. 

Either words have power or they don't.

----------


## moostraks

> Yep, thanks moos.  I know--I am going to watch my back from here on out.  I've tried to be fair and generous and we see where it's got me.  No more--I'm going to be a lot more careful and watch every move they make from here on out.  Silly me---here I thought being generous with them would be a good thing.


My condolences to the moderators , but the impression FF was trying to give was inaccurate in my opinion so figured if it was me, I would want to know the whole story rather than the side of someone who was manipulating (IMO) the facts for their own benefit.

----------


## moostraks

> I turned the other cheek only to find that it was getting me infractions.  That's what turning the other cheek will do in here.  They will report you for slights and ignore their own.  If we don't report them--they will continue on this path.  Report them.


Oh, I completely understand _why_ you are doing it. I am going a different route, and if I get banned, well, it took me 7 years to get it. Not too bad a track record if I do say so myself.

I figure they have been reporting me since they make hay about it all the time. I haven't heard back from it if they are.  I assume I would know?

----------


## Terry1

> Oh, I completely understand _why_ you are doing it. I am going a different route, and if I get banned, well, it took me 7 years to get it. Not too bad a track record if I do say so myself.
> 
> I figure they have been reporting me since they make hay about it all the time. I haven't heard back from it if they are.  I assume I would know?


I keep getting notes from Bryan all of the time because they're whining to him about me constantly, while I've been ignoring their insults, accusations and not reporting their posts.  That won't be the case any longer--I assure them it won't.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh, I completely understand _why_ you are doing it. I am going a different route, and if I get banned, well, it took me 7 years to get it. Not too bad a track record if I do say so myself.
> 
> I figure they have been reporting me since they make hay about it all the time. I haven't heard back from it if they are.  I assume I would know?


I may or may not have (I don't remember) reported you in the distant past, but I have definitely not done so since you posted publicly that you weren't reporting us.  I don't speak for anyone other than me with that though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I keep getting notes from Bryan all of the time because they're whining to him about me constantly, while I've been ignoring their insults, accusations and not reporting their posts.  That won't be the case any longer--I assure them it won't.


Its not me.

----------


## Terry1

> Its not me.


I've reported Nang for this one too accusing me of being ungodly, a Gnostic amongst other condescending remarks she made in this post here.  Accusing someone of being a Gnostic is the same as accusing someone of not being a Christian.

I also had to explain to both her and Sola what Gnosticism was, because obviously--they had no clue.  This post was a flat out personal attack on me by Nang.






> Originally Posted by Nang View Post 
> Terry's beliefs are not "semi-gnosticism," . . they are full-blown gnosticism.
> 
>  But you know what is sad . . . is any of us who confront her with her error will be deemed bad.
> 
>  Meanwhile, she will not bother to research Gnosticism to learn of her error.
> 
>  As long as we are deemed bad, for identifying her error, she thinks she has cover, and thereby Terry finds excuse to remain in her error, while declaring we who would offer scriptural correction, to be "bad!"
> 
> Such ungodliness produces the woes of the faithful sons and prophets of God!!!

----------


## Terry1

> Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post 
> 
> So how does God know who to pick and choose Nang?





> I have no idea.


Then if you have no idea why God picks and chooses whom He will--then how can you possibly accuse anyone of not being a Christian, ungodly or an agent of satan?  How do you know you're a Christian if you don't know how God picks or chooses whom He will?  Which also begs the same question that TC brought up.  What's the point of you attempting to witness to others if you believe that we have no free will and that it's all up to God as to whomever He chooses? 

What is the point of you arguing anything with anyone or accusing them of anything based upon what you believe as a whole?

----------


## Theocrat

> I have never said that "the potter has no hands".
> 
> I have spoken of the nature of the Potter,, and not of his skill.
> 
> The Potter I know is not smashing pots. He is repairing the broken shards.


My brother, if the Bible is your ultimate source for truth about our God, then you must realize that there are passages in it which refute your statement above: "The Potter I know is not smashing pots."

Take Romans 9:14-29, for instance:




> *What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?* God forbid. For He saith to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth." *Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardeneth.*
> 
> *Thou wilt say then unto me, "Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?" Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, "Why hast thou made me thus?" Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?* As He saith also in Osee, "I will call them My people which were not My people, and her beloved, which was not beloved." And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, "Ye are not My people, there shall they be called the children of the living God."
> 
> Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved, for He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth." And as Esaias said before, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha." [emphasis mine]


Right there, the apostle Paul instructs us that God does, in fact, create certain vessels for glory and certain vessels for destruction, both to demonstrate His mercy and His wrath, respectively. Also, notice how Paul anticipates the response of his listeners, when says, "Thou wilt say then unto me, 'Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?'" He recognized that some would accuse him of rejecting man's so-called free will after he asserted that God has mercy on whom He will have mercy and hardens whom He will harden. Yet, Paul tells his audience that there is a reason why God is treating His vessels differently, if for nothing else, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.

So, pcosmar, does your understanding of God's treatment of His creation (to save some, and to destroy others) generate the same response from others that Paul anticipated from his audience in that text? If it doesn't, then I believe that you need to rethink your views on how God handles His creation because they are not aligned with the Biblical revelation of God's sovereignty over His own vessels. I know this is a very difficult doctrine for Christians to grasp. Nevertheless, God has revealed it to us because He wants us to know something about His character and nature over His creation. Our responsibility is to believe it, but also to implore God to increase our faith as we learn more of the "difficult sayings" in His word.

----------


## moostraks

> I may or may not have (I don't remember) reported you in the distant past, but I have definitely not done so since you posted publicly that you weren't reporting us.  I don't speak for anyone other than me with that though.


When you posted in my rep center then that you were reporting that post too, then you were lying, either then in order to intimidate me, or now about whether you reported me in order to manipulate others in the present. So now with this post, you are admitting a lie has occurred one way or the other. The time and date stamp show it is clearly after I made it known and it appears to now be understood by the three (or at least 2 of you) that I am not flagging. 

I'm not crying about it, just keeping it real here on the timing and the responses and the problem with the accuracy of said responses. Just sayin'....

----------


## moostraks

> I keep getting notes from Bryan all of the time because they're whining to him about me constantly, while I've been ignoring their insults, accusations and not reporting their posts.  That won't be the case any longer--I assure them it won't.


Ugh...well, I don't want to stoke the fires with the information I gave you but wanted you to make an informed choice on how you feel called to proceed and whom to trust. Could of pm'd you but it needs to be in the open and FF has his say to refute or justify his position. Surprised me when it only looks worse than I suspected, at imo according to his responses. I completely understand your decision. I just hope others understand why acptulsa or I might be choosing a different path. We each are responsible to our own conscience and it all works out in the end.

----------


## Terry1

> So you do not deny being Open Theist?


This accusation against Deb comes from your experience over on TOL I imagine where a bunch of them have followed after their leader.    Do you even know what an open theists is Nang?  Probably just as much as you understand what a Gnostic is. lol

----------


## Sola_Fide

> My brother, if the Bible is your ultimate source for truth about our God, then you must realize that there are passages in it which refute your statement above: "The Potter I know is not smashing pots."
> 
> Take Romans 9:14-29, for instance:
> 
> 
> 
> Right there, the apostle Paul instructs us that God does, in fact, create certain vessels for glory and certain vessels for destruction, both to demonstrate His mercy and His wrath, respectively. Also, notice how Paul anticipates the response of his listeners, when says, "Thou wilt say then unto me, 'Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?'" He recognized that some would accuse him of rejecting man's so-called free will after he asserted that God has mercy on whom He will have mercy and hardens whom He will harden. Yet, Paul tells his audience that there is a reason why God is treating His vessels differently, if for nothing else, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.



Yes.

----------


## Terry1

> Ugh...well, I don't want to stoke the fires with the information I gave you but wanted you to make an informed choice on how you feel called to proceed and whom to trust. Could of pm'd you but it needs to be in the open and FF has his say to refute or justify his position. Surprised me when it only looks worse than I suspected, at imo according to his responses. I completely understand your decision. I just hope others understand why acptulsa or I might be choosing a different path. We each are responsible to our own conscience and it all works out in the end.


At this point moos, I don't trust any of them and can't believe a word any of them say either.  I can't even count the times that Nang has denied saying something forcing me to go rifle through threads and posts to find it and post it back in front of her.  Then she ends up back-peddling attempting to cover her tracks.

The point is here, if you've read my last reply to Nang, she admitted having "no idea" how God chooses whom He will, yet--in thread after thread, post after post she has accused others and myself of being ungodly, uninformed, in error, a Gnostic, hypocrites and worse---and this is all based upon her one statement--that she has absolutely no idea whom God chooses or why--yet she is the expert on how to be the chosen of God--not knowing and admitting to the fact that she doesn't know how He chooses, whom or why!

Now, you figure this one out--does anything she or they say match up with what she or they claim to believe then?

----------


## pcosmar

> Our responsibility is to believe it, but also to implore God to increase our faith as we learn more of the "difficult sayings" in His word.


Oh, I do.. And there is balance in Gods word,, and I seek that balance..

I tend to oppose unbalanced doctrine wherever I find it,,and to balance it with the Word.



> "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.


And yet there will be a judgement of the world..

This goes to purpose of the Potter,, His purpose is not to smash pots,, but to restore them..

On one hand we are told not to Judge,, and on another we are told to judge,, and in others we are told how to judge.

Is this contradictory?? No.. There is a balance..

When looking at the Nature of God,,seeking to understand him,,and to know his will,, we need to find this balance as well..

Between the powerful entity that can wipe the world from existence with a word,, and the loving Father that cares for his creation.

As someone observed  "Your God is a dick"..(sadly) That is the image that was being presented.

My God is not such,, and I will not portray him as such.. I Know a Loving Father,, A Creator that has gone to great lengths to save and and to restore his creation.

My God is my very best friend,, and I do converse with him,, And I do ask him questions,, and question what I have been taught.. And yes,, I have asked him "Why?" .. and over time he has showed it to me,, in a way I can both understand and accept. He showed me the balance.

My God is a righteous Judge,, and a Merciful Father. 
I trust him before I trust the teachings of any man.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ugh...well, I don't want to stoke the fires with the information I gave you but wanted you to make an informed choice on how you feel called to proceed and whom to trust. Could of pm'd you but it needs to be in the open and FF has his say to refute or justify his position. Surprised me when it only looks worse than I suspected, at imo according to his responses. I completely understand your decision. I just hope others understand why acptulsa or I might be choosing a different path. We each are responsible to our own conscience and it all works out in the end.





> At this point moos, I don't trust any of them and can't believe a word any of them say either.  I can't even count the times that Nang has denied saying something forcing me to go rifle through threads and posts to find it and post it back in front of her.  Then she ends up back-peddling attempting to cover her tracks.
> 
> The point is here, if you've read my last reply to Nang, she admitted having "no idea" how God chooses whom He will, yet--in thread after thread, post after post she has accused others and myself of being ungodly, uninformed, in error, a Gnostic, hypocrites and worse---and this is all based upon her one statement--that she has absolutely no idea whom God chooses or why--yet she is the expert on how to be the chosen of God--not knowing and admitting to the fact that she doesn't know how He chooses, whom or why!
> 
> Now, you figure this one out--does anything she or they say match up with what she or they claim to believe then?




Please stop making your posts personal.  This is my thread so stick to the issue in the OP.


Thank You,

SF

----------


## moostraks

> Please stop making your posts personal.  This is my thread so stick to the issue in the OP.
> 
> 
> Thank You,
> 
> SF


I am sticking to issues and it is your bud FF that brought me in due to his lies.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am sticking to issues and it is your bud FF that brought me in due to his lies.


Do you believe the Potter has hands or do you believe the Potter has no hands?

----------


## Terry1

> Please stop making your posts personal.  This is my thread so stick to the issue in the OP.
> 
> 
> Thank You,
> 
> SF


After all of the Catholic and EOC threads you've trashed and gotten personal in and you have the nerve here? LOL

I'll be watching you all from here on out, that's a promise.  What's good for goose as they say.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> After all of the Catholic and EOC threads you've trashed and gotten personal in and you have the nerve here? LOL
> 
> I'll be watching you all from here on out, that's a promise.  What's good for goose as they say.


Do you belive the Potter has hands?  Or do you believe the Potter has no hands?

----------


## pcosmar

> Do you believe the Potter has hands or do you believe the Potter has no hands?


I believe the Potter has hands,, (Yay Me?)
The Creator is all powerful, No doubts about it.

But what is his desire? Does he want to smash pots?

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, *not wishing for any to perish* but for all to come to repentance.

----------


## moostraks

> I believe that you think the Potter has no hands.  Am I correct?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...No-Hands/page3




> Do you believe the Potter has hands or do you believe the Potter has no hands?


I believe the pot which keeps repeating himself lacks lacks eyes and ears. And also bears false witness for which he feels no need to apologize.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> you don't speak for the Potter even though you fancy yourself _the_ authority on the matter. The nifty thing about your manner of conception is who are you to argue I am wrong if my interpretation of the same verses is different than yours? It is you who has made all arguments subjective to personal interpretation. You think I am an idiot and I see you not addressing verses that contradict your particular positions and that is where the discussion meets a roadblock.


So.....do you believe the Potter has hands or not?  Which is it?

----------


## Terry1

> Do you belive the Potter has hands?  Or do you believe the Potter has no hands?



 We are the clay--God provokes us and draws us to Him, but He does not force the clay--He works it and molds it as that same clay conforms to His image and likeness. The clay does this conforming willingly allowing God to form it into His image and likeness. Clay that does not conform is destroyed. God foreknows the clay because God foreknows our hearts--we are the clay.

----------


## Theocrat

> Oh, I do.. And there is balance in Gods word,, and I seek that balance..
> 
> I tend to oppose unbalanced doctrine wherever I find it,,and to balance it with the Word.
> 
> 
> And yet there will be a judgement of the world..
> 
> This goes to purpose of the Potter,, His purpose is not to smash pots,, but to restore them..
> 
> ...


Pcosmar, you have stated, "The Potter I know is not smashing pots," but I've shown you a Biblical text that clearly proves your assertion to be false. This issue is not about "unbalanced doctrine"; it's about faithfulness to the truth of God's inspired, infallible, and inerrant revelation, *wherever it may lead*.

Quoting John 3:16 does not refute what Romans 9 teaches, nor does your appeal to God as "a loving and merciful Father" (which He is) explain away the truth that Paul lays out in Romans 9 where the apostle clearly says that God was willing to show His wrath and make His power known on vessels of dishonor to their destruction. (v. 22)

At this point, it just seems that you wish to be willingly ignorant about how God reveals Himself, in all of His attributes. So, my conclusion is simply that you are wrong about God "not smashing pots," and you are in the dangerous situation of making God out to be a liar. I sincerely hope that you don't continue to be like that, pcosmar.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We are the clay--God provokes us and draws us to Him, but He does not force the clay--He works it and molds it as that same clay conforms to His image and likeness. The clay does this conforming willingly allowing God to form it into His image and likeness. Clay that does not conform is destroyed. God foreknows the clay because God foreknows our hearts--we are the clay.


How does a clay pot "willingly conform"?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> How does a clay pot "willingly conform"?


You could just as easily ask how a clay pot can be insubbordinate or question it's maker for thinking it is expendable? 


this anology is getting a little nuts here.

----------


## pcosmar

> Quoting John 3:16 does not refute what Romans 9 teaches, nor does your appeal to God as "a loving and merciful Father" (which He is) explain away the truth that Paul lays out in Romans 9 where the apostle clearly says that God was willing to show His wrath and make His power known on vessels of dishonor to their destruction. (v. 22)


There are some who will reject God,, Satan will not be saved.. Those that choose to follow him will not be saved.
There will be a judgement..

The book will be opened and the cloud of witnesses will testify.

Yes,, I do understand that some will reject salvation.
That is not grounds to stand here condemning all who do not conform to your narrow and flawed views.

God is the Judge.. Not S_F,, not John Calvin , and not you.

God does not desire that any would perish,, and yet some will.




> But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,* not wishing for any to perish* but for *all* to come to repentance.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Also, it's Memorial Day.  

WTF are we doing in this thread anyway?  It should be time for beer and BBQ.

----------


## Theocrat

> There are some who will reject God,, Satan will not be saved.. Those that choose to follow him will not be saved.
> There will be a judgement..
> 
> The book will be opened and the cloud of witnesses will testify.
> 
> Yes,, I do understand that some will reject salvation.
> That is not grounds to stand here condemning all who do not conform to your narrow and flawed views.
> 
> God is the Judge.. Not S_F,, not John Calvin , and not you.
> ...


Is Romans 9 true, pcosmar?

----------


## moostraks

> Please stop making your posts personal.  This is my thread so stick to the issue in the OP.
> 
> 
> Thank You,
> 
> SF





> You are a sinner who deserves Hell for all eternity for your sin.  What argument do you have against the holy Judge who you have spit on, degraded, murdered, raped, and defiled?  
> 
> What is missing from your entire thinking here?  _It is that you are a sinner, and your sin has placed you under God's wrath._  You deserve this wrath forever.  THAT is what you are missing.





> No Terry.  This is telling YOU that the Potter creates some pots for glory and some pots for destruction.
> 
> Do not presume to tell me what your perverted, man-centered interpretation is of this text and then phrase it like "God is trying to tell you this".  You don't what you are talking about.





> There is a big difference between describing YOU and YOUR religious views as being Gnostic . . . than with *YOU declaring God* " to be evil" and a "puppet-master God."
> 
> You are just a creature stumbling around in the dark. 
> 
> He is Holy God Almighty; whom you blaspheme without hesitation.
> 
> Shame on you . . .





> I think you exaggerate with malice in your heart.


...

----------


## Terry1

> How does a clay pot "willingly conform"?



How dose it not?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You could just as easily ask how a clay pot can be insubbordinate or question it's maker for thinking it is expendable? 
> 
> 
> this anology is getting a little nuts here.


The analogy the Bible uses is absurd on purpose.   It is absolutely absurd that a clay pot would turn to the one who molded it and say "Why did you make me like this"?

In the same way, it is absurd that a person who was molded and shaped for God's own purpose, could turn around and question his maker.

----------


## Terry1

> ...



Thanks moos--there's a couple I missed in there--will be shooting them off directly too.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How dose it not?


Because a clay pot is *molded.* The clay pot serves the purpose of the Potter.  The potter makes some pots for common use and some for noble use.

This is Romans 9.  Woe to you for saying the Potter has no hands.

----------


## James Madison

> The analogy the Bible uses is absurd on purpose.   It is absolutely absurd that a clay pot would turn to the one who molded it and say "Why did you make me like this"?
> 
> In the same way, it is absurd that a person who was molded and shaped for God's own purpose, could turn around and question his maker.


Except, you know, how the pot can't turn around and question his maker and the person _can_.

----------


## VIDEODROME

So where did the Potter come from?  Where did he even learn Pottery?

Is the Earth really just the biggest Chia Pet evar?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Except, you know, how the pot can't turn around and question his maker and the person _can_.


No the person cant.  That is the entire point of the analogy.

----------


## moostraks

> So.....do you believe the Potter has hands or not?  Which is it?


And you did not bother to scroll any further. You don't listen to what your neighbor says and this has been an exercise in how often you can attack and complain while silencing specific people who shall remain nameless.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So where did the Potter come from?  Where did he even learn Pottery?


Why did you ask that question?  I'll answer it, but why did bring the discussion to this place?  Just curious.

----------


## James Madison

> No the person cant.  That is the entire point of the analogy.


Actually I can. In fact, I'll say it now. "God, why did you make me like this? Not complaining or anything -- just curious."

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Why did you ask that question?  I'll answer it, but why did bring the discussion to this place?  Just curious.


I suppose because this topic is about the product merely questioning it's maker or Potter in this case.  The "Hands or No Hands" is question about the nature of this Potter.  I just asked a different question about the Potter.

A big deal is made about this character so we could use even more info.  Hands?  Maybe.   How about the whole making pots thing?  Why did that get started?  Does he like making pots or hate his job?  Did he do something else before "Pottery"?  Maybe Masonry?  Did the stonework give him to much backtalk?

----------


## pcosmar

> No the person cant.  That is the entire point of the analogy.


Yes he  can..
God was going to wipe Israel from the earth.. and Moses interceded on behalf of the people,, and changed Gods mind.
There are several instances that God has changed his mind at the request of a person standing in intercession.

God can do as he wishes.. And we have Christ as an Advocate.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually I can. In fact, I'll say it now. "God, why did you make me like this? Not complaining or anything -- just curious."


Yes, and your objection is as worthless as a pot questioning it's Potters hands.

You are made for a purpose and you cannot question your purpose.  The Potter does not exist for the purpose of the pots....the pots exist for the Potters purposes.  This is Romans 9.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes he  can..
> God was going to wipe Israel from the earth.. and Moses interceded on behalf of the people,, and changed Gods mind.
> There are several instances that God has changed his mind at the request of a person standing in intercession.
> 
> God can do as he wishes.. And we have Christ as an Advocate.


Why did God "change His mind" in that instance, pcosmar?  Do you think He was trying to teach us something about His purposes for the future?

----------


## VIDEODROME

Maybe if there is a God he doesn't even know WTF he's doing and that's really why pots are broken and discarded.  Or he tries to impress the ancient world with miracles just to try and look competent.

----------


## RJB

> Also, it's Memorial Day.  
> 
> WTF are we doing in this thread anyway?  It should be time for beer and BBQ.


I had a keg of home brewed beer that ran out while I wasn't paying attention.  I had to buy some bottled stuff

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Maybe if there is a God he doesn't even know WTF he's doing and that's really why pots are broken and discarded.  Or he tries to impress the ancient world with miracles just to try and look competent.


Or maybe, as God had revealed in His revelation to man, He has declared the end from the beginning and His purpose will stand.

----------


## pcosmar

> Is Romans 9 true, pcosmar?


Yes.
Is 2 Peter 3:9 true? 




> The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, *not wishing for any to perish* but for* all* to come to repentance.


Is John 3;16,17 true?



> *For God so loved the world*, that He gave His only begotten Son,* that whoever believes in Him* shall not perish, but have eternal life. "For God *did not* send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might *be saved* through Him.…


There is a balance in the Word that you will not find by pushing one or two favored verses.
You have to take the whole book as a whole.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I still have a few bottles of craftbrew beer left and steak from yesterday.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Or maybe, as God had revealed in His revelation to man, He has declared the end from the beginning and His purpose will stand.


Yeah that sounds like a Manager.

----------


## Terry1

Who understands why "clay pots" are used at a metaphor to describe our shaping and molding?

Is there anyone here who can connect the biblical dots to this explanation here as to why some clay conforms better in the firey kiln than others do? Are we all the same type of clay with regards to it's ability to conform?

This is from wiki on "clays" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery...neral_contents

  Clays bodies and mineral contents

There are several materials that are referred to as clay. The properties of the clays differ, including: Plasticity, the malleability of the body; the extent to which they will absorb water after firing; and shrinkage, the extent of reduction in size of a body as water is removed. Different clay bodies also differ in the way in which they respond when fired in the kiln.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes.
> Is 2 Peter 3:9 true? 
> 
> 
> 
> Is John 3;16,17 true?
> 
> 
> There is a balance in the Word that you will not find by pushing one or two favored verses.
> You have to take the whole book as a whole.


The Lord is patient TOWARD YOU, not wishing for any to perish but all to come to repentance. 

Who is the "you" that Peter is talking about pcosmar?

----------


## pcosmar

> Why did God "change His mind" in that instance, pcosmar?  Do you think He was trying to teach us something about His purposes for the future?


Actually, there are several lessons in it.
The whole book is there to teach..

----------


## VIDEODROME

> The Lord is patient TOWARD YOU, not wishing for any to perish but all to come to repentance.


Orly? 

I thought you were saying he does intend for some to perish?

----------


## pcosmar

> The Lord is patient TOWARD YOU, not wishing for any to perish but all to come to repentance. 
> 
> Who is the "you" that Peter is talking about pcosmar?


Me,, 
He obviously wrote the book for me. But I suppose it would be the " that whoever believes in Him".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who understands why "clay pots" are used at a metaphor to describe our shaping and molding?
> 
> Is there anyone here who can connect the biblical dots to this explanation here as to why some clay conforms better in the firey kiln than others do? Are we all the same type of clay with regards to it's ability to conform?
> 
> This is from wiki on "clays" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery...neral_contents
> 
>   Clays bodies and mineral contents
> 
> There are several materials that are referred to as clay. The properties of the clays differ, including: Plasticity, the malleability of the body; the extent to which they will absorb water after firing; and shrinkage, the extent of reduction in size of a body as water is removed. Different clay bodies also differ in the way in which they respond when fired in the kiln.



Who cares about any of this unbiblical nonsense.

_How is the pot and Potter metaphor used in the context of Romans 9._  That is the question.  Forget about this extra biblical crap and focus on the text of the Bible.

----------


## RJB

> I still have a few bottles of craftbrew beer left and steak from yesterday.


I'll be drinking this beer when 5 o'clock rolls around.  It has a great malty taste and not overpowering on the hops.

----------


## James Madison

> Yes, and your objection is as worthless as a pot questioning it's Potters hands.


Worthless or not, I can still ask the question. And if I ask the question, then it must have purpose because god predestined it. Good or bad, I accept the consequences.




> You are made for a purpose and you cannot question your purpose.  The Potter does not exist for the purpose of the pots....the pots exist for the Potters purposes.  This is Romans 9.


And if a potter carelessly destroys his works, he will soon find himself without funds. I know this hard for 21st Century Americans to understand, Sola, but I will try and help you along. The Bible was written a loooong time ago, when resources were scarce. No craftsman would dispose of clay unless it was completely unworkable. Every attempt was made to salvage the pot. More to the point, what kind of retard labors for hours and wastes resources on a creation that is intended for the garbage? "Ok, I finished planting my garden, time to run the tiller through it!"

----------


## moostraks

> Actually I can. In fact, I'll say it now. "God, why did you make me like this? Not complaining or anything -- just curious."





> Yes, and your objection is as worthless as a pot questioning it's Potters hands.
> 
> You are made for a purpose and you cannot question your purpose.  The Potter does not exist for the purpose of the pots....the pots exist for the Potters purposes.  This is Romans 9.


S_F, James merely asked not objected. You stopped listening to folks awhile ago it seems.

James Madison, I believe S_F has lost Matthew 7 from his copy of the Bible so I'll forward you this:

 Matthew 7: 7“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8“For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9“Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? 10“Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Me,, 
> He obviously wrote the book for me.


No.  The book may be for you, but it wasn't written TO you.  When you find our who the "you" is that Peter is talking about, the passage will make sense in the context of limited atonement.

----------


## moostraks

> Who cares about any of this unbiblical nonsense.
> 
> _How is the pot and Potter metaphor used in the context of Romans 9._  That is the question.  Forget about this extra biblical crap and focus on the text of the Bible.





> Many times when someone discusses what the Bible teaches they may use, even though they may be unaware of it, what is called Proof Text. Proof texting uses certain short passages, many times only a single verse, pulled from the Bible in support of a particular belief or doctrine.
> 
> The problem with this method is that the person who is Proof texting usually gives their selected verses a meaning that may be entirely different from what the writer intended. The Bible is written in such a way that most verses cannot be correctly understood in a stand alone fashion. The context of a particular verse, who wrote it, when did they write it, where did they write it, etc. is needed to arrive at its intended inspired meaning.
> 
> Proof texting can easily lead to wrong conclusions regarding what is the truth of God. An argument or doctrinal stand that relies heavily on proof text is ultimately considered weak. In fact, those who preach and teach others based on such texts are generally viewed negatively by true Biblical scholars and those who seriously study the Bible.
> 
> A better way of understanding the scriptures is through what is called Hermeneutics. This technical term simply refers to the process or method of carefully analyzing the meaning of a particular passage. Factors such as who wrote the text, the time period it was written, where and to whom was the passage written, etc. need to be considered in order to arrive at a correct understanding of what the Biblical text teaches. Additionally, any interpretation needs to consider what other parts of the Bible say that are related to what is being studied.
> 
> 10 For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line . . . (Isaiah 28:10)


http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/d...oftexting.html

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'll be drinking this beer when 5 o'clock rolls around.  It has a great malty taste and not overpowering on the hops.


I'm curious as to why in many of these threads about deep spiritual issues, you focus on alcohol.  Is there something to that?

----------


## VIDEODROME

Is the whole Bible boiled down to the Book of Romans and Paul/Saul for some people?  WTF.  He seems like a Jesus wannabe.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Also, it's Memorial Day.  
> 
> WTF are we doing in this thread anyway?  It should be time for beer and BBQ.


Why should liberty lovers acknowledge "memorial day" at all?

I apologize for interupting Sola's thread, but if he could quickly answer this as well I'd appreciate it.  To me the fact that its a statist "holiday" is all the more reason for me to be on here talking to liberty lovers and refusing to acknowledge the State's idolatrous day.

Now, I understand you might just happen to want beer and a BBQ today, and I guess I don't see an issue with that, but why should we care that its "memorial day"?  When is "tell all the people who go to kill for the State's evil purposes to repent" day?  




> Yes, and your objection is as worthless as a pot questioning it's Potters hands.
> 
> You are made for a purpose and you cannot question your purpose.  The Potter does not exist for the purpose of the pots....the pots exist for the Potters purposes.  This is Romans 9.


James Madison is a Calvinist last I knew, so I find this exchange odd.

I think what James Madison is trying to say is that the pot is literally able to ask the pot why he was made like this; while the point Sola is making is that the pot has no RIGHT to ask the potter why he was made like this.   I  see these questions as different.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I'm curious as to why in many of these threads about deep spiritual issues, you focus on alcohol.  Is there something to that?


Didn't Jesus perform the ultimate party trick of making Wine from Water?

----------


## RJB

> I'm curious as to why in many of these threads about deep spiritual issues, you focus on alcohol.  Is there something to that?


Oh, I already agreed the potter has hands.  

What's the next "deep" issue?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is the whole Bible boiled down to the Book of Romans and Paul/Saul for some people?  WTF.  He seems like a Jesus wannabe.


Of course not.  But the bulk of New Testament theology comes from Paul's epistles.   When people want to attack the core of Christianity,  they always attack Paul.  Atheists and many anti-Christian faiths focus on discrediting Paul.

----------


## pcosmar

> No.  The book may be for you, but it wasn't written TO you.  When you find our who the "you" is that Peter is talking about, the passage will make sense in the context of limited atonement.


I don't put limits on God.

Man looks on the outward appearance,,but God looks on the heart.

He will save who he wishes.. and the more the merrier when we celebrate at the feast..

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh, I already agreed the potter has hands.  
> 
> What's the next "deep" issue?


So you renounce the idol of free will?  Great!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> At this point moos, I don't trust any of them and can't believe a word any of them say either.  I can't even count the times that Nang has denied saying something forcing me to go rifle through threads and posts to find it and post it back in front of her.  Then she ends up back-peddling attempting to cover her tracks.
> 
> The point is here, if you've read my last reply to Nang, she admitted having "no idea" how God chooses whom He will, yet--in thread after thread, post after post she has accused others and myself of being ungodly, uninformed, in error, a Gnostic, hypocrites and worse---and this is all based upon her one statement--that she has absolutely no idea whom God chooses or why--yet she is the expert on how to be the chosen of God--not knowing and admitting to the fact that she doesn't know how He chooses, whom or why!
> 
> Now, you figure this one out--does anything she or they say match up with what she or they claim to believe then?


What do you mean by this question?

If you mean why did God choose certain people and not others, Romans 9 tells you the reason why.

On the other hand, if you are asking why God chose me specifically (or Nang, or whoever) and not some other specific person instead, we don't know.  We do know that it had nothing to do with anything in the person who was being chosen, so it is unconditional.  But beyond that, we don't know why, and we don't have to know why.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Why should liberty lovers acknowledge "memorial day" at all?
> 
> I apologize for interupting Sola's thread, but if he could quickly answer this as well I'd appreciate it.  To me the fact that its a statist "holiday" is all the more reason for me to be on here talking to liberty lovers and refusing to acknowledge the State's idolatrous day.
> 
> Now, I understand you might just happen to want beer and a BBQ today, and I guess I don't see an issue with that, but why should we care that its "memorial day"?  When is "tell all the people who go to kill for the State's evil purposes to repent" day?


I'm just sayin it's a Generic Holiday let's go relax and chillout regardless of whether it celebrates the contribution of soldiers or if there is a sale at Walmart. 

We all know the deeper meaning of today is having a 3 day weekend and sales. 

http://www.memorialdaysales.net/

----------


## moostraks

> Is the whole Bible boiled down to the Book of Romans and Paul/Saul for some people?  WTF.  He seems like a Jesus wannabe.


Why yes it does seem to boil down to that for some folks. I think Paul would be shaking his head over what some folks do in the name of Paulism.

----------


## RJB

It was a miracle, not a party trick and interestingly at the request of his mother.

But it was definitely wine and NOT grape juice. Because:

1. Fermentation was a means of storing grapes.  In that climate juice becomes wine in a matter of days.

2.  People were leaving the party due to the wine running out-- I've yet to see that with grape juice.

3  It was commented that they saved the best wine for later--  Juice is juice only wine can be fine.

4.  Besides wine to this day is an important part of the Jewish culture, as in many Mediterranean cultures.





> Didn't Jesus perform the ultimate party trick of making Wine from Water?

----------


## moostraks

> So you renounce the idol of free will?  Great!

----------


## VIDEODROME

> What do you mean by this question?
> 
> If you mean why did God choose certain people and not others, Romans 9 tells you the reason why.
> 
> On the other hand, if you are asking why God chose me specifically (or Nang, or whoever) and not some other specific person instead, we don't know.  We do know that it had nothing to do with anything in the person who was being chosen, so it is unconditional.  But beyond that, we don't know why, and we don't have to know why.


Maybe he chose me?  I'm saved bitches.

----------


## moostraks

> Maybe he chose me?  I'm saved bitches.


According to their standards it is now your obligation to insult and inform them of their damned nature every time they contradict you....

----------


## pcosmar

> Of course not.  But the bulk of New Testament theology comes from Paul's epistles.   When people want to attack the core of Christianity,  they always attack Paul.  Atheists and many anti-Christian faiths focus on discrediting Paul.


No,,not the bulk,, but a part.. And I always try to balance his part remembering that he was a Pharisee and writes from that perspective.

I tend to relate more to Peter,,my namesake,, and to John who was closest to Christ.
David is one of my heroes as well.

and when it comes to Religion I feel like Sampson.. "if I had my way"

----------


## VIDEODROME

> According to their standards it is now your obligation to insult and inform them of their damned nature every time they contradict you....


Actually, we don't know who in here won the Salvation Lottery.

----------


## Terry1

> Who cares about any of this unbiblical nonsense.
> 
> _How is the pot and Potter metaphor used in the context of Romans 9._  That is the question.  Forget about this extra biblical crap and focus on the text of the Bible.


That question wasn't meant for you actually, because you will never understand it.  For example--does this mean anything to you at all regarding it's biblical implications?
*
Different clay bodies also differ in the way in which they respond when fired in the kiln*

----------


## James Madison

> Who cares about any of this unbiblical nonsense.


Because there's more to the Bible than words on a page. It's the history of a people, and their relationship with a deity. If you don't read the Bible without understanding the _history_ behind the text, you lose half its meaning.

Why are the Parables always about picking crops, raising livestock, or making crafts? Is salvation only meant for the farmers? Of course not. Jesus was speaking to an agrarian society: mostly uneducated, illiterate, and uninterested in anything else. You speak in familiar terms so the people can understand you. That's who the Bible was written for. It wasn't written for me; it wasn't written for you; it wasn't written for anyone, but the people who were there. And there's nothing you can do to ever understand what it was truly like 2,000 years ago. The best advice I can offer is to visit the countryside, read a few history books, and pray. Even then, subtleties in speech, nuances, and inflections are nigh impossible to ever recreate when such a large cultural gap exists between the past and present. That's just the way it is.

----------


## pcosmar

> So you renounce the idol of free will?  Great!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Of course not.  But the bulk of New Testament theology comes from Paul's epistles.   When people want to attack the core of Christianity,  they always attack Paul.  Atheists and many anti-Christian faiths focus on discrediting Paul.


On top of that, Jesus teaches the same election doctrine in John 6:37-44 and John 10:15-29.

----------


## moostraks

> Actually, we don't know who in here won the Salvation Lottery.


Speak for yourself. Seems as though some know just who got chosen (it wasn't you btw, but they were pretty clear about that last night it seems) 

I think it would be great if the present was of some relevance and worthy of consideration for those who are chosen and condemning others. Just a thought...

----------


## Terry1

> Actually, we don't know who in here won the Salvation Lottery.

----------


## Terry1

> So you renounce the idol of free will?  Great!


You don't even know if you're saved, chosen or going to heaven or hell by your own belief and doctrine.  How can YOU tell anyone else anything or accuse them of anything?  By what right have you given yourself to be judge and jury of your peers?

Frankly--I'm really tired of you attempting to confirm your own belief by abusing others.  It's time to pay the piper dude.

----------


## acptulsa

Does anyone _else_ have faith that God will save His fiery kiln?  Will it still have a purpose in Heaven?




> I'm curious as to why in many of these threads about deep spiritual issues, you focus on alcohol.  Is there something to that?


'For as often as you drink of this cup, do it in remembrance of Me.'

----------


## VIDEODROME

> So you renounce the idol of free will?  Great!


Embraces idol of predestination?

----------


## Terry1

> Embraces idol of predestination?


He has no clue if he's been "predestined" to anything.  I have no idea where Sola's headed, but one thing I can say without the doubt--with the direction he's headed-- that train can't possibly be on the right tracks.

----------


## RJB

> So you renounce the idol of free will?  Great!


It's God's will that I post about beer.


But based on the reactions on this forum, I would have to say that you exhibit the least faith in the will of God of all the Christians who post.  If you go to a Christian Monastery, you will see the most at peace people and that is because they have complete trust in God's plan. * If you truly believed in what you say you believe in, you would be the most peaceful poster by far*.  The tension in the human mind that leads to lack of self-control (such as calling someone a fool when you know it will lead to getting banned) is evidence of lack of faith in God's plan.  Place your worries in the Potter's hands Sola, and have a little faith in Christ.

----------


## Terry1

> It's God's will that I post about beer.


It was ordained and predestined--how can Sola be arguing with this concept?

----------


## otherone

> I suppose because this topic is about the product merely questioning it's maker or Potter in this case.  The "Hands or No Hands" is question about the nature of this Potter.  I just asked a different question about the Potter.
> 
> A big deal is made about this character so we could use even more info.  Hands?  Maybe.   How about the whole making pots thing?  Why did that get started?  Does he like making pots or hate his job?  Did he do something else before "Pottery"?  Maybe Masonry?  Did the stonework give him to much backtalk?


Aren't metaphors kinda the same as images (mental ones)?

----------


## Terry1

> I'll be drinking this beer when 5 o'clock rolls around.  It has a great malty taste and not overpowering on the hops.


Do you really like dark beer?  I've tried it and it all tastes so bitter.  Have you tried those Blue Moons?  Mmm--they're delicious.

----------


## otherone

> I'm curious as to why in many of these threads about deep spiritual issues, you focus on alcohol.  Is there something to that?


I'd wager a lot more folk would show up for mass if transubstantiation involved beer instead of wine.

----------


## Terry1

> I'm curious as to why in many of these threads about deep spiritual issues, you focus on alcohol.  Is there something to that?


It's Memorial Day--where's your patriotic PCness?

----------


## otherone

> The best advice I can offer is to visit the countryside, read a few history books, and pray.


....hopefully a place without wifi.

----------


## RJB

> Do you really like dark beer?  I've tried it and it all tastes so bitter.  Have you tried those Blue Moons?  Mmm--they're delicious.


It's an American thing of over compensating.  We've had such watered down crap for so long, that now they over do it on the hops (the herb that bitters it.)  An Indian Pale Ale is usually one of the more bitter beers because they hop the heck out of it.  So dark or pale doesn't really affect the bitterness all that much.

Dark beers just use malts that are roasted longer.  This gives it a chocolate/coffee overtones to the tastes.  Try Scottish (as above) or British styles for a milder tasting dark beer.

----------


## James Madison

> ....hopefully a place without wifi.


Or at least dial-up.

----------


## acptulsa

> I suppose because this topic is about the product merely questioning it's maker or Potter in this case.  The "Hands or No Hands" is question about the nature of this Potter.  I just asked a different question about the Potter.
> 
> A big deal is made about this character so we could use even more info.  Hands?  Maybe.   How about the whole making pots thing?  Why did that get started?  Does he like making pots or hate his job?  Did he do something else before "Pottery"?  Maybe Masonry?  Did the stonework give him to much backtalk?


Too much for a Pharisee, apparently.




> 36
> As he rode along, the people were spreading their cloaks on the road;
> 37
> and now as he was approaching the slope of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of his disciples began to praise God aloud with joy for all the mighty deeds they had seen.
> 38
> They proclaimed:
> Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord.*
> Peace in heaven and glory in the highest.n
> 39
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That question wasn't meant for you actually, because you will never understand it.  For example--does this mean anything to you at all regarding it's biblical implications?
> *
> Different clay bodies also differ in the way in which they respond when fired in the kiln*


No.  It means nothing to the context Romans 9.  The context of Romans 9 is that the pots are predestined by the Potter to be pots for glory or pots for destruction, and the pot cannot turn to its maker and say "Why did you make me like this"?

----------


## Terry1

> It's an American thing of over compensating.  We've had such watered down crap for so long, that now they over do it on the hops (the herb that bitters it.)  An Indian Pale Ale is usually one of the more bitter beers because they hop the heck out of it.  So dark or pale doesn't really affect the bitterness all that much.
> 
> Dark beers just use malts that are roasted longer.  This gives it a chocolate/coffee overtones to the tastes.  Try Scottish (as above) or British styles for a milder tasting dark beer.



Against my better judgment, I listened to the hub who asked me to use a dark beer in the welsh rarebit instead of a light.  It tasted awful--we had to toss it out.  Many call for a dark beer in that recipe, so I used a Guinness--ack-yuck-it was horrible and bitter.  Never like the dark beers, even when we went to the beer festival--it all still tasted bad. Stick to the Blue Moons--now they've got beer right. 

Happy Memorial Day chugging.

----------


## RJB

> Happy Memorial Day chugging.


I'm too old for chugging

----------


## James Madison

> It's God's will that I post about beer.
> 
> 
> But based on the reactions on this forum, I would have to say that you exhibit the least faith in the will of God of all the Christians who post.  If you go to a Christian Monastery, you will see the most at peace people and that is because they have complete trust in God's plan. * If you truly believed in what you say you believe in, you would be the most peaceful poster by far*.  The tension in the human mind that leads to lack of self-control (such as calling someone a fool when you know it will lead to getting banned) is evidence of lack of faith in God's plan.  Place your worries in the Potter's hands Sola, and have a little faith in Christ.


And it was those most peaceful monks, in tune with God, who perfected the beer in its modern incarnation. Coincidence? I think not...

----------


## Terry1

> No.  It means nothing to the context Romans 9.  The context of Romans 9 is that the pots are predestined by the Potter to be pots for glory or pots for destruction, and the pot cannot turn to its maker and say "Why did you make me like this"?


No, they can't ask "why did you make me like this" because God foreknew the clay and the choices that same clay would make--hence the clay wasn't made evil or bad by God because of His foreknowledge--they made themselves the bad clay that God already foreknew would be a pot made for destruction.  Hence some are made for destruction and some for glory--by their own choosing and free will.

----------


## Terry1

> And it was those most peaceful monks, in tune with God, who perfected the beer in its modern incarnation. Coincidence? I think not...


I never thought of that but, I know it's true--what a very cool post!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, they can't ask "why did you make me like this" because God foreknew the clay and the choices that same clay would make--hence the clay wasn't made evil or bad by God because of His foreknowledge--they made themselves the bad clay that God already foreknew would be a pot made for destruction.  Hence some are made for destruction and some for glory--by their own choosing and free will.


Let's compare Terry1's irrational, man-centered theology with the text of Romans 9:




> *What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
> 
> 
> “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
>     and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
> 
> It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 
> 
> For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
> ...



Salvation does not depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

God shows mercy to whom He will, and He hardens whom He will.

The pot cannot turn back to the Potter and say, "why am I still being blamed if I'm only doing Your will"?  

God predestines some pots for glory, and some for destruction.

----------


## Deborah K

> Oh, I do.. And there is balance in Gods word,, and I seek that balance..
> 
> I tend to oppose unbalanced doctrine wherever I find it,,and to balance it with the Word.
> 
> 
> And yet there will be a judgement of the world..
> 
> This goes to purpose of the Potter,, His purpose is not to smash pots,, but to restore them..
> 
> ...


Love this, Pete.

----------


## moostraks

> Let's compare Terry1's irrational, man-centered theology with the text of Romans 9:





> PUT YOUR BIG GIRL PANTIES ON AND DEBATE THE ISSUES INSTEAD OF MAKING YOUR POSTS ABOUT PERSONAL SQUABBLES.


...

----------


## Deborah K

> Why did God "change His mind" in that instance, pcosmar?  Do you think He was trying to teach us something about His purposes for the future?


You mentioned earlier that God doesn't change his mind.  Which is it?

----------


## Deborah K

> Maybe if there is a God he doesn't even know WTF he's doing and that's really why pots are broken and discarded.  Or he tries to impress the ancient world with miracles just to try and look competent.


Here's my interpretation from another thread.  I never got a sufficient explanation for being "wrong".




> Getting into verse squabbles is anathema to my sensibilities, but I what I interpret, when I take 21-24 in context, is that the Lord, like the man who makes jars out of clay, makes some for holding flowers, others for holding garbage, and he has the right to show his power and fury (destroying the ones he wishes) *when he has been so patient with them all this time.*   He chooses whom he will, so that everyone can see how very great his glory is.
> 
> 'When he has been so patient with them all this time' - implies that he has allowed them to make choices, and he's had enough!


The one thing that stands out for me is that no one wants to address the fact that God was patient (long suffering, or whatever version you have).  Why would he need to be if he controls our wills?

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes.
> Is 2 Peter 3:9 true? 
> 
> 
> 
> Is John 3;16,17 true?
> 
> 
> There is a balance in the Word that you will not find by pushing one or two favored verses.
> You have to take the whole book as a whole.


I'm glad that you agree that Romans 9 is true, and, yes, I believe those other passages are true, as well. My intent of bringing up the Romans 9 passage was to show you that God does, in fact, "smash pots" (to put it roughly), even though you denied that He does so. If you agree with Romans 9, then you must also agree that God does indeed create vessels "fitted to destruction."

----------


## Deborah K

> The Lord is patient TOWARD YOU, not wishing for any to perish but all to come to repentance. 
> 
> Who is the "you" that Peter is talking about pcosmar?


The reader?

Of course, you won't answer me, because you log off every time I reply in a thread you're in.  hmmmm.....a little tit for tat maybe?

----------


## Deborah K

> So you renounce the idol of free will?  Great!


Free will is an idol?

Idols are to be worshipped, right?  




> Worship:  wor·ship  (wûr′shĭp)
> n.
> 1. 
> a.  The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
> 
> b.  The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
> 
> 2.  Ardent devotion; adoration.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but this is really ridiculous.  The Bible is filled with verses referring to man's choices, and to claim that anyone who believes that God created us with free will, is somehow worshipping free will as an idol is just illogical at best.

----------


## eduardo89

I once took a pottery class.

----------


## Theocrat

> The reader?
> 
> Of course, you won't answer me, because you log off every time I reply in a thread you're in.  hmmmm.....a little tit for tat maybe?


What Sola is getting at is the fact that we need to consider the context of that verse. Once again, 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." To whom is "us-ward" referring to? If we go back to the beginning of that chapter, then we will see who Peter was referring to. In 2 Peter 3:1, it says, "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance..." And who are the "beloved" in which Peter is addressing in this second epistle of his? When we go back to Peter's first epistle, we can find out exactly who the "beloved" are.

In 1 Peter 1:1-2, the apostle Peter writes:




> Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, *to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father*, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Grace unto you and peace be multiplied. [emphasis mine]


So 2 Peter 3:9 is in reference to those elect saints that Peter was addressing in 1 Peter 1. So when we read that passage, we know who the "us-ward" is referring to. And when Peter states that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," he is talking about God's elect. So, one cannot take 2 Peter 3:9 as a universal statement which applies to all people, *without exception*. The context of that passage does not allow such an interpretation.

----------


## moostraks

> Let's compare Terry1's irrational, man-centered theology with the text of Romans 9:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salvation does not depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
> 
> God shows mercy to whom He will, and He hardens whom He will.
> 
> ...


Jeremiah 18:1-11
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Potter and the Clay

18 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord saying, 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will announce My words to you.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something on the wheel. 4 But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make.

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, 6 “Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. 7 At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9 Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. 11 So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.”’

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What Sola is getting at is the fact that we need to consider the context of that verse. Once again, 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." To whom is "us-ward" referring to? If we go back to the beginning of that chapter, then we will see who Peter was referring to. In 2 Peter 3:1, it says, "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance..." And who are the "beloved" in which Peter is addressing in this second epistle of his? When we go back to Peter's first epistle, we can find out exactly who the "beloved" are.
> 
> In 1 Peter 1:1-2, the apostle Peter writes:
> 
> 
> 
> So 2 Peter 3:9 is in reference to those elect saints that Peter was addressing in 1 Peter 1. So when we read that passage, we know who the "us-ward" is referring to. And when Peter states that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," he is talking about God's elect. So, one cannot take 2 Peter 3:9 as a universal statement which applies to all people, *without exception*. The context of that passage does not allow such an interpretation.



That's right.  The YOU that Peter is speaking of is the "beloved" ones who "have the same faith as ours". He is talking about the elect. God is not willing that any of the elect perish eternally, but that all of them come to repentance.  God wills this to be so.

----------


## RJB

> I once took a pottery class.


With or without hands?  That reminds me, a potter I know made me a really nice beer mug.  

Oh BTW, it's 5 o'clock.  I'm guessing my posts should start getting interesting

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Aren't metaphors kinda the same as images (mental ones)?


Is this a metaphor about a metaphor?  Or a Simile?

whoa!

----------


## moostraks

> With or without hands?  That reminds me, a potter I know made me a really nice beer mug.  
> 
> Oh BTW, it's 5 o'clock.  I'm guessing my posts should start getting interesting

----------


## Deborah K

> What Sola is getting at is the fact that we need to consider the context of that verse. Once again, 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." To whom is "us-ward" referring to? If we go back to the beginning of that chapter, then we will see who Peter was referring to. In 2 Peter 3:1, it says, "This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance..." And who are the "beloved" in which Peter is addressing in this second epistle of his? When we go back to Peter's first epistle, we can find out exactly who the "beloved" are.
> 
> In 1 Peter 1:1-2, the apostle Peter writes:
> 
> 
> 
> So 2 Peter 3:9 is in reference to those elect saints that Peter was addressing in 1 Peter 1. So when we read that passage, we know who the "us-ward" is referring to. And when Peter states that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," he is talking about God's elect. So, one cannot take 2 Peter 3:9 as a universal statement which applies to all people, *without exception*. The context of that passage does not allow such an interpretation.


If he's strictly talking about God's "elect",  and they're already saved, why is he then "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." ? 

As far as I can tell, John 3:16 is his "elect", and as far as I can tell, he gave us free will which is why he is "unwilling that any should perish", etc.

----------


## Terry1

I do have point to make here regarding Nang's and Sola's attacks on not only myself, but others in this thread.

The fact is (others have brought up this point as well), by their own belief and doctrine, they can not win any souls to Christ with their witness.  Because by their own doctrine--we're not in control of who God chooses and who He doesn't and there's no way anything we say or do can win a soul to Christ because God has already foreordained who will and who won't make it to heaven.  Hence their belief denotes that they have no need to evangelize, witness or even correct anyone because God has already chosen whom He will and nothing any one says will change that.  The bible tells us to go and tell the "good news" and "win souls" to Christ.  Sola's and Nang's doctrine does not say this and if it does--would then contradict itself by doing so.

So if Nang and Sola truly believe what they preach and teach--then they have no other reason to come in here and abuse people for not believing as they do.  It's not in their doctrine that they need to win souls to Christ, preach the good news, or attempt to change anyone's mind because God has already ordained everyone, every thing and chosen whom He will--which then begs the question--why are they here doing this and why are they even here at all?

----------


## Deborah K

> I do have point to make here regarding Nang's and Sola's attacks on not only myself, but others in this thread.
> 
> The fact is (others have brought up this point as well), by their own belief and doctrine, they can not win any souls to Christ with their witness.  Because by their own doctrine--we're not in control of who God chooses and who He doesn't and there's no way anything we say or do can win a soul to Christ because God has already foreordained who will and who won't make it to heaven.  Hence their belief denotes that they have no need to evangelize, witness or even correct anyone because God has already chosen whom He will and nothing any one says will change that.  The bible tells us to go and tell the "good news" and "win souls" to Christ.  Sola's and Nang's doctrine does not say this and if it does--would then contradict itself by doing so.
> 
> So if Nang and Sola truly believe what they preach and teach--then they have no other reason to come in here and abuse people for not believing as they do.  It's not in their doctrine that they need to win souls to Christ, preach the good news, or attempt to change anyone's mind because God has already ordained everyone, every thing and chosen whom He will--which then begs the question--why are they here doing this and why are they even here at all?


Maybe they're here because the Lord wants us to teach _them_ a thing or two.

----------


## acptulsa

What this thread needs is more fellowship.  So long as people are on this site to be seen not having fellowship with reprobates, I say more reprobates need to crash the party.

Any of those pots still have some beer in them?

----------


## RJB

> So if Nang and Sola truly believe what they preach and teach--then they have no other reason to come in here and abuse people for not believing as they do.  It's not in their doctrine that they need to win souls to Christ, preach the good news, or attempt to change anyone's mind because God has already ordained everyone, every thing and chosen whom He will--which then begs the question--why are they here doing this and why are they even here at all?


I was trying to say that.

They should also have the peace of the Lord with them that comes with faith in his will.

----------


## Deborah K

I don't consider myself a reprobate.  I don't think anyone who believes sincerely that God loved us so much that he gave his son for our sins, is a reprobate.

----------


## RJB

> Any of those pots still have some beer in them?


Sure.  Come on over, brother

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't consider myself a reprobate.  I don't think anyone who believes sincerely that God loved us so much that he gave his son for our sins, is a reprobate.


Yeah, but it's S_F's thread.  So lighten up, ya reprobate!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I once took a pottery class.


As did I.  Did you learn to use a potter's wheel or just clay-working by hand?  I learned both.

----------


## Terry1



----------


## moostraks

> I do have point to make here regarding Nang's and Sola's attacks on not only myself, but others in this thread.
> 
> The fact is (others have brought up this point as well), by their own belief and doctrine, they can not win any souls to Christ with their witness.  Because by their own doctrine--we're not in control of who God chooses and who He doesn't and there's no way anything we say or do can win a soul to Christ because God has already foreordained who will and who won't make it to heaven.  Hence their belief denotes that they have no need to evangelize, witness or even correct anyone because God has already chosen whom He will and nothing any one says will change that.  The bible tells us to go and tell the "good news" and "win souls" to Christ.  Sola's and Nang's doctrine does not say this and if it does--would then contradict itself by doing so.
> 
> So if Nang and Sola truly believe what they preach and teach--then they have no other reason to come in here and abuse people for not believing as they do.  It's not in their doctrine that they need to win souls to Christ, preach the good news, or attempt to change anyone's mind because God has already ordained everyone, every thing and chosen whom He will--which then begs the question--why are they here doing this and why are they even here at all?





> God tells us to preach. That is why we preach. We are being obedient to the Lord in proclaiming the gospel. Also, God uses the preaching of the gospel to bring his elect into the church. Furthermore, God works all things after the counsel of his will (Ephesians 1:11). This means that he works even our preaching and teaching concerning the person of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross, in order to bring his people to faith. We do not know the means by which God chooses his people. From all eternity God has known whatsoever shall come to pass because he is redeemed it to be so. But this does not mean that we are robots. Christians, who were set free from the bonds of sin, have an influence with God in prayer (James 5:16). Though this is a paradox, we are able to influence God who from all eternity knows whatsoever shall come to pass. I like to say that God ordains that we influence by her prayers. Therefore, we should pray that God will save people and that he would use us in the preaching and teaching of his word.
> 
> Furthermore, Isaiah 55:11 says that the word of God will not come back empty without accomplishing what God desires. Romans 1:16 says that the gospel is the power of God to salvation. So, we need to preach the word of God and proclaim the gospel. Both of these truths about the power of the preaching means that there is something in the preaching of the word of God that has the ability to change people. Therefore, we are to preach and teach the gospel much as we can because it is the power of the word of God that has effect on people.


http://www.calvinistcorner.com/why-preach.htm

^^^ This is the general teaching. To me, it sounds like circular reasoning, and makes the whole thing a sham and another opportunity for the "elect" to ridicule those that disagree with the belief system. Often it seems like more pounding people into the ground to stand on their shoulders like a soap box.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yeah, but it's S_F's thread.  So lighten up, ya reprobate!


I prefer the word miscreant.

----------


## Terry1

> http://www.calvinistcorner.com/why-preach.htm
> 
> ^^^ This is the general teaching. To me, it sounds like circular reasoning, and makes the whole thing a sham and another opportunity for the "elect" to ridicule those that disagree with the belief system. Often it seems like more pounding people into the ground to stand on their shoulders like a soap box.



It is circular and totally contradictory to what they believe.  IOW's that doctrine is one big absolute contradiction to what it claims to stand for.  No surprise here.

----------


## Brett85

> That's right.  The YOU that Peter is speaking of is the "beloved" ones who "have the same faith as ours". He is talking about the elect. God is not willing that any of the elect perish eternally, but that all of them come to repentance.  God wills this to be so.


Except of course that's not what the verse actually says.  You just have to completely rewrite it to say that.  It's pretty desperate really.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't consider myself a reprobate.  I don't think anyone who believes sincerely that God loved us so much that he gave his son for our sins, is a reprobate.


Who is "us"?  Every person without exception?  If Jesus paid the price for sin for every person without exception, then why do people still go to Hell?  How can your sins be paid for, by the Son of God Himself, and you still be punished for sin?  

This "Jesus" that you believe in, whose blood is worthless to save any person, is NOT the God of the Bible.  The Jesus of the Bible saves all the sheep who the Father has given Him and He will lose none of what the Father has given Him.  The Jesus of the Bible ACTUALLY SAVES.

----------


## Terry1

So here it is in a nutshell:

They don't know who God chooses or why, but they will condemn you for not believing as they do and tell you that you're going to hell for it.

They don't believe in the need to witness or evangelize because God has already foreordained who is chosen and who isn't--but they will mock and ridicule you for not being *a chosen one*, while at the same time do not know if they're chosen or not.  Only by them presuming upon God then do they claim to be "the chosen ones".

----------


## Terry1

> Who is "us"?  Every person without exception?  If Jesus paid the price for sin for every person without exception, then why do people still go to Hell?  How can your sins be paid for, by the Son of God Himself, and you still be punished for sin?  
> 
> This "Jesus" that you believe in, whose blood is worthless to save any person, is NOT the God of the Bible.  The Jesus of the Bible saves all the sheep who the Father has given Him and He will lose none of what the Father has given Him.  The Jesus of the Bible ACTUALLY SAVES.


How do you know you're chosen Sola?  For all we know according to your doctrine that you teach--you could very well be one of those pots made for destruction.  So why should we listen to a person who's possibly as doomed as we are?  None of what you're doing is helping any of us who are already ordained to be doomed--so then what's your purpose here?

----------


## RJB

> ...Though this is a paradox...


At least he admits it.  He may be a "tolerant-Calvinist."  The more militant might have put it a different way because some are so trapped in their man-made formulas.   Anything Biblical that contradicts their beliefs, they shrug off as not applying to the elect or ignore it.  There are some mysteries that we just have to trust in God about.  This guy is at least honest.

----------


## RJB

> This "Jesus" that you believe in, whose blood is worthless to save any person, is NOT the God of the Bible.  The Jesus of the Bible saves all the sheep who the Father has given Him and He will lose none of what the Father has given Him.  The Jesus of the Bible ACTUALLY SAVES.


And why do you believe that she doesn't believe in His blood to save us?  Is this one of your false formulas that you have been conditioned to believe?

----------


## Deborah K

> Who is "us"?  Every person without exception?  If Jesus paid the price for sin for every person without exception, then why do people still go to Hell?  How can your sins be paid for, by the Son of God Himself, and you still be punished for sin?  
> 
> This "Jesus" that you believe in, whose blood is worthless to save any person, is NOT the God of the Bible.  The Jesus of the Bible saves all the sheep who the Father has given Him and He will lose none of what the Father has given Him.  The Jesus of the Bible ACTUALLY SAVES.


Us, as in, all of us, his creation - those amongst his creation who believe.  Are you claiming God didn't create all of us humans here on earth?  Did someone else create us?  

Our choices are why some of us go to hell.  Some of us "choose 'death' ".

And I don't really care that you think I believe in a worthless Jesus.  Your arguments are illogical.  I read the Bible, Sola.  Your theology makes absolutely no sense when the Bible is taken in context.

----------


## Deborah K

> And why do you believe that she doesn't believe in His blood to save us?  Is this one of your false formulas that you have been conditioned to believe?


Yes, it is.  I'm convinced that he and the others are brainwashed.

----------


## Deborah K

> At least he admits it.  He may be a "tolerant-Calvinist."  The more militant might have put it a different way because some are so trapped in their man-made formulas.   Anything Biblical that contradicts their beliefs, they shrug off as not applying to the elect or ignore it.  There are some mysteries that we just have to trust in God about.  This guy is at least honest.


n/m

----------


## acptulsa

> Your arguments are illogical.


Uh oh.  You're talking to the guy who, by his own admission, thinks the way God does...

----------


## Deborah K

> So here it is in a nutshell:
> 
> They don't know who God chooses or why, but they will condemn you for not believing as they do and tell you that you're going to hell for it.
> 
> They don't believe in the need to witness or evangelize because God has already foreordained who is chosen and who isn't--but they will mock and ridicule you for not being *a chosen one*, while at the same time do not know if they're chosen or not.  Only by them presuming upon God then do they claim to be "the chosen ones".


This.  The arguments are circular, and full of logical fallacies.  We need to get back to a sense of ecumenism amongst the faithful in this forum.

----------


## Terry1

> This.  The arguments are circular, and full of logical fallacies.  We need to get back to a sense of ecumenism amongst the faithful in this forum.


I agree.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, it is.  I'm convinced that he and the others are brainwashed.


That's exactly what it is too.

----------


## Nang

> If he's strictly talking about God's "elect",  and they're already saved, why is he then "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." ?



Without a doubt, this is an epistle that was written to Christians:

" . . To those who have obtained (past tense) like precious faith with us (apostles) by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."  II Peter 1:1

Apparently "scoffers" had questioned these Christians' hopes of the second return of the Lord, and were taunting them with the fact that Jesus had NOT returned, and mocking such a long delay of His promises.  II Peter 3:1-4

Peter is assuring these Christians that the Lord was not slack in keeping this promise to return, because God's time is His own time.  What might seem like a long wait for believers on this earth, is as only "one day" in the eyes of God.   II Peter 3:5-9

Peter is also assuring these Christians, that if the Lord does not return before the present believers physically died, that the promise would be fulfilled without fail, and Peter described what that return is going to entail and be like.  II Peter 3:10-13

Then Peter instructs these Christians, how they should live as they wait for however long it takes for the Lord to return.  II Peter 3:14-18

Now, specifically, verse 9 that says:

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some (the scoffers) count slackness, but (the Lord) is longsuffering toward us (believers), not willing that any should perish, but come to repentance."

Is further explained in verse 15, that says:

". . Consider that the longsuffering of our Lord *is salvation* . ."

Here is the answer.  The answer for the delay in the Lord's return,* is salvation. *  Not the salvation to this group of Christians, all these to whom Peter directed his words were already saved . .  but salvation in time to come of more Christians, who being foreknown by the Lord as members of His church body, would ALL be brought to everlasting life.  For (the Lord) is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

I am sure this was very reassuring to older Christians; grandparents and parents of young children, who worried they might die without seeing the Lord return, and without witness the salvation of their families before they died.  Here Peter is promising them that the Lord will take as long as it takes to save all the elect, so that all should come to repentance, despite all the scoffing.

II Peter 3:9 is the promise that the Lord will not return, until every singly elect soul, that makes us His spiritual church body, is born, regenerated to faith, brought to saving repentance, and saved.




> As far as I can tell, John 3:16 is his "elect",


Agreed.




> and as far as I can tell, he gave us free will which is why he is "unwilling that any should perish", etc.


I do not see free will taught or brought into Peter's instructions at all.  

Peter is conveying the Lord's promise that no matter how long it takes, HE will not let any of those the Father gave Him to save, perish.

The entire church of Jesus Christ will be saved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Us, as in, all of us, his creation.  Are you claiming God didn't create all of us humans here on earth?  Did someone else create us?  Our choices are why some of us go to hell.
> 
> And I don't really care that you think I believe in a worthless Jesus.  Your arguments are illogical.  I read the Bible, Sola.  Your theology makes absolutely no sense when the Bible is taken in context.



No, its not "us" as in the "every person in the world".  The "us" is the "beloved" and the ones "who have the same faith as ours".  It is NOT every single person in the world.

----------


## Deborah K

Nang, I've got to run.  I'll respond as soon as I can.

----------


## Deborah K

> No, its not "us" as in the "every person in the world".  The "us" is the "beloved" and the ones "who have the same faith as ours".  It is NOT every single person in the world.


John 3:16 has no qualifiers that I am aware of.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This.  The arguments are circular, and full of logical fallacies.  We need to get back to a sense of ecumenism amongst the faithful in this forum.


Logical fallacies???  I don't think so.    

I put up a great thread that you should read regarding the logical fallacies of synergism.  If you are going to accuse people of fallacies, then you better prove it like I have.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> John 3:16 has no qualifiers that I am aware of.



Yes it most certainly does.

John 3:16 says that Jesus was given so that the believing ones have eternal life.  There is PARTICULARITY in John 3:16.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> John 3:16 has no qualifiers that I am aware of.


Ha!  You'll be disabused of your muddled thinking soon! mwahahaa....

----------


## Nang

> Maybe they're here because the Lord wants us to teach _them_ a thing or two.


I am sure this is definitely so, and I will admit I have learned a lot the short time I have been on this forum.

However, I am motivated to be here, and active in other places on the internet, because it is my way to witness to my faith in Jesus Christ.  Christians, already saved and gifted with faith and repentance, are the instruments used by God to proclaim and further the Gospel of Grace.  Believers are commissioned by the Lord to go out to all the nations; "teaching them to observe all things that I (Jesus Christ) have commanded you . . "  Matthew 28:18-20

So, being commission to witness to the grace of God and the righteousness of Jesus Christ to all the world, this is a good means to do so.  Only the Holy Spirit has the power to convince and convict others in all the nations of this message I carry in the name of the Lord.  And I have no idea who these souls will be, but that is not my responsibility.

I simply proclaim the good news, and leave the rest in the hands of sovereign God.  He will call and draw His elect to hear the gospel I (and FF and SF and Kevin and Louise) are proclaiming, as He wills.  

For He is not willing that any of His elect church perish in their sins.  He will save them all through the witness, testimony, and faithful teachings of those He has already saved.

This ties in with my previous answer to Deborah K regarding the context, purpose, and message of II Peter 3:9, does it not?

----------


## Brett85

John 3:16 says whatever Sola Fide rewrites it to say.

----------


## Brett85

> I simply proclaim the good news, and leave the rest in the hands of sovereign God.  He will call and draw His elect to hear the gospel I (and FF and SF and Kevin and Louise) are proclaiming, as He wills.


I'm not sure why you include Kevin in your group.  He's not a Calvinist and doesn't proclaim the Calvinist gospel.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> John 3:16 says whatever Sola Fide rewrites it to say.


I see no issue with his interpretation.

----------


## Brett85

> I see no issue with his interpretation.


Because it says *whosoever* believes in him shall not perish but receive everlasting life.  It's speaking of unlimited atonement.  Calvinism refuted.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you count Kevin as part of the elect?  He's not a Calvinist.


I can't speak for Nang, but speaking for me:

I have no idea if Kevin is saved or not.  Although I'm uncomfortable making a blanket statement that Arminians are Christians, my position on this issue is somewhat muddy and nuanced (my position is currently somewhat nuanced, and I'm still unsure of it) at least compared to SF's position.

I have no idea who among the unregenerate is elect.  So as far as I know, anyone here could be elect.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because it says *whosoever* believes in him shall not perish but receive everlasting life.  It's speaking of unlimited atonement.  Calvinism refuted.


No, its not, because the passage says nothing about those who do not believe.  It does not say that Christ have himself for the non-believing ones.  Silly Arminian assumption refuted

----------


## Brett85

> I can't speak for Nang, but speaking for me:
> 
> I have no idea if Kevin is saved or not.  Although I'm uncomfortable making a blanket statement that Arminians are Christians, my position on this issue is somewhat muddy and nuanced (my position is currently somewhat nuanced, and I'm still unsure of it) at least compared to SF's position.
> 
> I have no idea who among the unregenerate is elect.  So as far as I know, anyone here could be elect.


I edited my comment.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> John 3:16 has no qualifiers that I am aware of.





> Yes it most certainly does.
> 
> John 3:16 says that Jesus was given so that the believing ones have eternal life.  There is PARTICULARITY in John 3:16.


Unfortunately, the section that John wrote about how "anybody who believeth not according to the exact same identical beliefs as Sola_Fide down to the last jot ant tiddle, is not actually a believer." was redacted from the Alexandrian Text and is no longer available in modern translations of scripture.

----------


## Brett85

> No, its not, because the passage says nothing about those who do not believe.  It does not say that Christ have himself for the non-believing ones.  Silly Arminian assumption refuted


It says that Christ loved the world and died so that the entire world *might* be saved.  Being saved is conditioned upon making the choice to accept that Christ died on the cross and rose again.

----------


## Nang

> John 3:16 has no qualifiers that I am aware of.


Unbelievers are not promised everlasting life in John 3:16.  

The context of John 3:16 is John 3:3, that says one must first be born again, to see (comprehend) the Kingdom of God.  Those who "see" also believe in the gospel and they also repent of their sins.

The conclusion of John 3:16, is that not all will believe nor will all the "world" respond to the light of the gospel.  These remain condemned 18-19, for they prove to "hate the light" of the gospel.  These are not born of the Spirit, and thus cannot "see" the light of the good news of the Christ.

"But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, *that they have been done in God.*"  John 3:21 (cp Isaiah 26:12, I Chronicles 17:19)

So even the wonderful promise of John 3:16 cannot be properly taught and understood, if it is lifted out of its context.  One must read all Jesus said on this occasion to appreciate the truine works of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in bringing the light of the Christ into this world, and their determination that all believers will never perish, but have everlasting life.

Again, this ties in with the questions about II Peter 3:9, and why some of us are here proclaiming these truths.  God must have elect souls reading and hearing our message of sovereign grace, and He will not let them perish, but will save His own.

----------


## Nang

> Unfortunately, the section that John wrote about how "anybody who believeth not according to the exact same identical beliefs as Sola_Fide down to the last jot ant tiddle, is not actually a believer." was redacted from the Alexandrian Text and is no longer available in modern translations of scripture.



Snide comment, noted.  Where's the love and respect, Gunny?

----------


## RJB

> Snide comment, noted.  Where's the love and respect, Gunny?


It's humor.  You should have seen Eduardo and I badgering each other earlier.

----------


## Nang

> It says that Christ loved the world and died so that the entire world *might* be saved.  Being saved is conditioned upon making the choice to accept that Christ died on the cross and rose again.


I don't see a "might" in John 3:16.  I see nothing about "choice" or "accepting Christ" in John 3:16

All I see is the promise that whoever believes shall not perish, but have everlasting life.  And Jesus has already taught in John 3:3, the necessity of being born from above by the power of the Holy Spirit precedes belief and comprehension of the kingdom promised (gospel).

----------


## Nang

> It's humor.  You should have seen Eduardo and I badgering each other earlier.



Sorry.  I don't think it was funny.  Emoticons should be added or (JK) inserted, if one is attempting humor, IMO.

----------


## RJB

> Sorry.  I don't think it was funny.  Emoticons should be added or (JK) inserted, if one is attempting humor, IMO.


I take it for granted.

----------


## tod evans

564 posts in 2 days.........

----------


## Nang

> I'm not sure why you include Kevin in your group.  He's not a Calvinist and doesn't proclaim the Calvinist gospel.


Because Kevin evidences love of the Lord, and love for his neighbors here on this forum.  He is biblical, humble, and honest.

I disagree with some of the teaching he has received, but I experienced some of the same teachings in my early Christian life (even though I worked through them and away from them), so why would I judge him negatively?

Besides, there is no "Calvinist group" amongst those of us who tend to doctrinally agree.  We represent the spiritual church body of Jesus Christ . . not a high-school lunch table for the in-crowd.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't see a "might" in John 3:16.  I see nothing about "choice" or "accepting Christ" in John 3:16.


It's in John 3:17.

"For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him *might be saved.*"

----------


## Theocrat

> Without a doubt, this is an epistle that was written to Christians:
> 
> " . . To those who have obtained (past tense) like precious faith with us (apostles) by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."  II Peter 1:1
> 
> Apparently "scoffers" had questioned these Christians' hopes of the second return of the Lord, and were taunting them with the fact that Jesus had NOT returned, and mocking such a long delay of His promises.  II Peter 3:1-4
> 
> Peter is assuring these Christians that the Lord was not slack in keeping this promise to return, because God's time is His own time.  What might seem like a long wait for believers on this earth, is as only "one day" in the eyes of God.   II Peter 3:5-9
> 
> Peter is also assuring these Christians, that if the Lord does not return before the present believers physically died, that the promise would be fulfilled without fail, and Peter described what that return is going to entail and be like.  II Peter 3:10-13
> ...


I agree with that.

----------


## moostraks

> Sorry.  I don't think it was funny.  Emoticons should be added or (JK) inserted, if one is attempting humor, IMO.





> I take it for granted.

----------


## Nang

> Yes, it is.  I'm convinced that he and the others are brainwashed.


I am just as convinced you have presuppositions that alter scriptures you read.  I know, for I was brainwashed in an Arminian, Hyper-Dispensational church for 7 years, and it took my husband's and my private and hard study of the entire Bible, to escape the errors that were pumped into our brains.

It was only after we personally saw our beliefs clearly, did we go looking to escape this brainwashing; discovered a Presbyterian Pastor/Teacher; and found out that what the Holy Spirit had taught us at home, alone . . was historically, and officially called the Reformed faith.  We had never head of it before, let alone we never heard of Calvin or his teachings.

We were led into the teachings ABOUT Jesus Christ by reading and studying the Holy Scriptures, alone.  When the Presbyterian Pastor gave us access to his library, and the writings of the early Protestant fathers of the Christian faith, we felt like we had already died and gone to heaven.  It was like a miracle to see in print, from sound and respected and learned theologians, *exactly* the same truths we had found on our own.  What joy to have our beliefs validated and to find such wonderful fellowship with fellow believers!

----------


## moostraks

> Unfortunately, the section that John wrote about how "anybody who believeth not according to the exact same identical beliefs as Sola_Fide down to the last jot ant tiddle, is not actually a believer." was redacted from the Alexandrian Text and is no longer available in modern translations of scripture.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because Kevin evidences love of the Lord, and love for his neighbors here on this forum.  He is biblical, humble, and honest.
> 
> I disagree with some of the teaching he has received, but I experienced some of the same teachings in my early Christian life (even though I worked through them and away from them), so why would I judge him negatively?
> 
> Besides, there is no "Calvinist group" amongst those of us who tend to doctrinally agree.  We represent the spiritual church body of Jesus Christ . . not a high-school lunch table for the in-crowd.


In before Sola's "how can you not see that Arminianism is works salvation" post




> It's in John 3:17.
> 
> "For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him *might be saved.*"


"might" does not mean "possible" in this context.  If I say "I'm going to mcdonalds that I might buy a hamburger" I'm not saying that I might go to Mcdonalds and not buy a hamburger.  I am saying that I'm going to Mcdonalds IN ORDER TO buy a hamburger.  Its the same here.  the "world" will be saved.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> At least he admits it.  He may be a "tolerant-Calvinist."  The more militant might have put it a different way because some are so trapped in their man-made formulas.   Anything Biblical that contradicts their beliefs, they shrug off as not applying to the elect or ignore it.  There are some mysteries that we just have to trust in God about.  This guy is at least honest.


What does tolerant calvinism have to do with paradox theology?

----------


## Nang

> It's in John 3:17.
> 
> "For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him *might be saved.*"


Gentiles as well as Jews.  The context of the passage began with Jesus instructing a Jew, and this extends His teaching by revealing God loves the other nations of the world, besides just Jews.  This was news to the Jews.  They had no idea their Messiah would ever go global!!!

Besides, your point will not stand, according to the following verse 18.

----------


## RJB

> What does tolerant calvinism have to do with paradox theology?


Just a guess.  Tolerants, OTCers, you, you guys are still a mystery to me.

----------


## RJB

How is humor recognized?  Humor is both truth and pain.




> Attachment 2545

----------


## VIDEODROME

> How is humor recognized?  Humor is both truth and pain.


*"Jokes are grievances." - Marshall McLuhan*

----------


## moostraks

> I am just as convinced you have presuppositions that alter scriptures you read.  I know, for I was brainwashed in an Arminian, Hyper-Dispensational church for 7 years, and it took my husband's and my private and hard study of the entire Bible, to escape the errors that were pumped into our brains.
> 
> It was only after we personally saw our beliefs clearly, did we go looking to escape this brainwashing; discovered a Presbyterian Pastor/Teacher; and found out that what the Holy Spirit had taught us at home, alone . . was historically, and officially called the Reformed faith.  We had never head of it before, let alone we never heard of Calvin or his teachings.
> 
> We were led into the teachings ABOUT Jesus Christ by reading and studying the Holy Scriptures, alone.  When the Presbyterian Pastor gave us access to his library, and the writings of the early Protestant fathers of the Christian faith, we felt like we had already died and gone to heaven.  It was like a miracle to see in print, from sound and respected and learned theologians, *exactly* the same truths we had found on our own.  What joy to have our beliefs validated and to find such wonderful fellowship with fellow believers!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Just a guess.  Tolerants, OTCers, you, you guys are still a mystery to me.


Meh, I'm technically a tolerant calvinist by OTCs definition.  It doesn't mean actually being tolerant.

----------


## Terry1

Published on Jan 24, 2013 


He studied Calvinism and eventually saw the errors of Calvinism and understood the truth of Catholicism. He converted to the Catholic Faith with his family in 2003.
















There's more parts if you want to go to youtube to see the rest.

----------


## Nang

> Meh, I'm technically a tolerant calvinist by OTCs definition.  It doesn't mean actually being tolerant.



I like the word "patient" rather than "tolerant."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I like the word "patient" rather than "tolerant."


Sure, but I didn't make up this term.

Do you believe that there is even a single saved person who believes in universal atonement?  By the OTC definition you are a "tolerant calvinist" if you say yes.  I dislike that term and think its silly actually, but it is what it is.

No, I don't think we should tolerate that teaching.  Its a big deal, and I couldn't attend a church that was teaching it.  I think stubbornly clinging to it in the light of evidence may well be a sign of a false conversion, or a disbelief in grace alone.  But I think its possible to believe in grace alone with only a limited understanding of the nature of the atonement.

----------


## Brett85

> I am just as convinced you have presuppositions that alter scriptures you read.  I know, for I was brainwashed in an Arminian, Hyper-Dispensational church for 7 years, and it took my husband's and my private and hard study of the entire Bible, to escape the errors that were pumped into our brains.
> 
> It was only after we personally saw our beliefs clearly, did we go looking to escape this brainwashing; discovered a Presbyterian Pastor/Teacher; and found out that what the Holy Spirit had taught us at home, alone . . was historically, and officially called the Reformed faith.  We had never head of it before, let alone we never heard of Calvin or his teachings.
> 
> We were led into the teachings ABOUT Jesus Christ by reading and studying the Holy Scriptures, alone.  When the Presbyterian Pastor gave us access to his library, and the writings of the early Protestant fathers of the Christian faith, we felt like we had already died and gone to heaven.  It was like a miracle to see in print, from sound and respected and learned theologians, *exactly* the same truths we had found on our own.  What joy to have our beliefs validated and to find such wonderful fellowship with fellow believers!


Interesting.  I came to believe in Arminianism by studying the Holy Scriptures, alone.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Interesting.  I came to believe in Arminianism by studying the Holy Scriptures, alone.


I don't believe you.  I can't even fathom how that is possible.

Is Terry Roman Catholic now?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Interesting.  I came to believe in Arminianism by studying the Holy Scriptures, alone.


All natural men read the Scriptures and come away from that reading that there is something they must do to be saved (rather than understanding that Christ alone has already secured redemption for His elect).

The Pharisees, the Judiazers, the Gentiles, pretty much every group that Jesus and the apostles reserved their harshest words for, all believed that salvation was something to be done by man.

Salvation is not working, it is CEASING from working.  Salvation is not man's effort, it is God's mercy.   Salvation is not doing, it is receiving.

----------


## RJB

> *"Jokes are grievances." - Marshall McLuhan*


Very true.

----------


## Terry1

> I don't believe you.  I can't even fathom how that is possible.
> 
> Is Terry Roman Catholic now?


No, not *Roman*, but yes Catholic-- I'm only a short time away from becoming a member at my local Greek Orthodox Church.  

I want to thank you, Nang and Sola for letting me see the light--

----------


## acptulsa

> What does tolerant calvinism have to do with paradox theology?


How could it not have everything to do with paradox theology?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, not *Roman*, but yes Catholic-- I'm only a short time away from becoming a member at my local Greek Orthodox Church.  
> 
> I want to thank you, Nang and Sola for letting me see the light--


  ~hugs~  When will your Chrismation be, if you don't mind me asking? (mine will be in December)

----------


## moostraks

> All natural men read the Scriptures and come away from that reading that there is something they must do to be saved (rather than understanding that Christ alone has already secured redemption for His elect).
> 
> The Pharisees, the Judiazers, the Gentiles, pretty much every group that Jesus and the apostles reserved their harshest words for, all believed that salvation was something to be done by man.
> 
> Salvation is not working, it is CEASING from working.  Salvation is not man's effort, it is God's mercy.   Salvation is not doing, it is receiving.

----------


## Terry1

> ~hugs~  When will your Chrismation be, if you don't mind me asking? (mine will be in December)


I've only visited so far, but definitely going to commit--  I attended the one further away, but this one that's closer to home is much better for me and the people are wonderful.  I still have a ways to go before full membership, but I am committed now.  I have to do things as time allows because of my work here, but things are coming together.  There are some wonderful people there who used to be Protestants--I felt so at home.

----------


## acptulsa

> Salvation is not working, it is CEASING from working.  Salvation is not man's effort, it is God's mercy.   Salvation is not doing, it is receiving.


So, does it only happen on the Sabbath, do you think?

But if God does all the work, and He rests on the seventh day too, maybe that won't work.

----------


## acptulsa

> No, not *Roman*, but yes Catholic-- I'm only a short time away from becoming a member at my local Greek Orthodox Church.


Do they do communion with wine?  Or ouzo?

'Cause I like ouzo.  Might cause me to convert.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, does it only happen on the Sabbath, do you think?
> 
> But if God does all the work, and He rests on the seventh day too, maybe that won't work.


Again, who knows what on earth you are talking about...

----------


## Terry1

> Do they do communion with wine?  Or ouzo?
> 
> 'Cause I like ouzo.  Might cause me to convert.


  You are welcome to join me in a glass any time brother!   Love my Ouzo.

----------


## Brett85

> All natural men read the Scriptures and come away from that reading that there is something they must do to be saved (rather than understanding that Christ alone has already secured redemption for His elect).
> 
> The Pharisees, the Judiazers, the Gentiles, pretty much every group that Jesus and the apostles reserved their harshest words for, all believed that salvation was something to be done by man.
> 
> Salvation is not working, it is CEASING from working.  Salvation is not man's effort, it is God's mercy.   Salvation is not doing, it is receiving.


Well, that's just a straw man argument.  I never said anything about salvation by works.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Do they do communion with wine?  Or ouzo?
> 
> 'Cause I like ouzo.  Might cause me to convert.


Traditionally, wine.  I suppose you could use ouzo if you decide to take communion with friends/family outside liturgy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Well, that's just a straw man argument.*  I never said anything about salvation by works.


Standard in all "debate" with S_F. :/

----------


## acptulsa

> You are welcome to join me in a glass any time brother!   Love my Ouzo.


Kind of like eating black licorice and washing it down with vodka.

Only good.




> Well, that's just a straw man argument.  I never said anything about salvation by works.


It's a reflex.  You could say you bought an antique toy with a clock-work mechanism in it and he would tell you you're going to Hell.

----------


## pcosmar

> Again, who knows what on earth you are talking about...


What,, that wasn't in your notes of prepackaged arguments?

----------


## acptulsa

> What,, that wasn't in your notes of prepackaged arguments?


He used all those up long ago.

Unfortunately, he sure knows how to use a copier.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, that's just a straw man argument.  I never said anything about salvation by works.


Its not a strawman, just a debatable assertion.  Is faith a work?

----------


## moostraks

> He used all those up long ago.
> 
> Unfortunately, he sure knows how to use a copier.


duck boys...incoming hypocritical statement about sticking to the issues.

Or is that weapon strictly for us girls?

----------


## otherone

> Its not a strawman, just a debatable assertion.  Is faith a work?


huh.  Good question.
Is apologetics a work?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> huh.  Good question.
> Is apologetics a work?


Certainly, but nobody says that apologetics are preconditions for salvation.  Arminians say that a man-generated decision is a precondition for salvation.

I don't necessarily even know the answer to my question, was just throwing it out there for thought.

----------


## acptulsa

> duck boys...incoming hypocritical statement about sticking to the issues.
> 
> Or is that weapon strictly for us girls?


I think I'm on ignore.

Life is good.

----------


## otherone

> Certainly, but nobody says that apologetics are preconditions for salvation.


....so...you guys just bored then?  Or simply disruptive?  What's the point?

----------


## moostraks

> I think I'm on ignore.
> 
> Life is good.


Shunning is awesome! Catching the theatrics in the other thread? Looks like my mother was right about giving an ass enough rope. Yet, suspiciously a certain flag nazi has not whined about sticking to the issues. Curiouser and curiouser is a certain relationship...

----------


## acptulsa

> ....so...you guys just bored then?  Or simply disruptive?  What's the point?


It's that spit of land under the lighthouse.

----------


## moostraks

> It's that spit of land under the lighthouse.


So it's not the tip of the pencil? No wonder I never got it...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> ....so...you guys just bored then?  Or simply disruptive?  What's the point?


Matthew 28:19-20 and 1 Peter 3:15 is the point.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think I'm on ignore.
> 
> Life is good.


I don't put people on igtnorre.  I still read your posts.  And when you post something that is halfway intelligent and not a blatant strawman, I will respond.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't put people on igtnorre.  I still read your posts.  And when you post something that is halfway intelligent and not a blatant strawman, I will respond.


I never accused you of putting anyone on igtnorre.  Not even once.

----------


## moostraks

> I think I'm on ignore.
> 
> Life is good.


Lookin like Theo is needing a spot on the bench.

----------


## otherone

> Matthew 28:19-20 and 1 Peter 3:15 is the point.


are following Matthew 28:19-20 and 1 Peter 3:15 a work?  What happens if you don't?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> are following Matthew 28:19-20 and 1 Peter 3:15 a work?


Of course.



> What happens if you don't?


God uses the means of the preaching of the true gospel to bring people to Christ.  With that being said, I cannot even contemplate not sharing the grace I have received with other people, in hopes that God might save some through my preaching.

----------


## acptulsa

> God uses the means of the preaching of the true gospel to bring people to Christ.  With that being said, I cannot even contemplate not sharing the grace I have received with other people, in hopes that God might save some through my preaching.


So, you're saved by your faith even if God _does_ just happen to require works?  Not saying that's the case, mind you, just a hypothetical.  So, you're saved by your faith even _if_ God _does_ require works...

Hmmm...

What in God's name are the bretheren fighting over again?

----------


## otherone

> God might save some through my preaching.


God might save people because of something you've done?

----------


## acptulsa

Yo, Sola.  Found the Potter's hands.  They seem to be on FF's wrists.

Happy now (that was a _rhetorical question,_ Sola...)?

----------


## moostraks

> God might save people because of something you've done?


wait for it....wait for it...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yo, Sola.  Found the Potter's hands.  They seem to be on FF's wrists.
> 
> Happy now (that was a _rhetorical question,_ Sola...)?


You're reading an arrogance into my post that was not intended.  God USES the preaching of the gospel to save.  Yes, that's Biblical.

----------


## acptulsa

> You're reading an arrogance into my post that was not intended.  God USES the preaching of the gospel to save.  Yes, that's Biblical.


I didn't read any arrogance into that post.  If your faith puts you to work, and if your brother's salvation is at least as important to you as your own, you're doing just fine so far as I can tell.  More power to you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I didn't read any arrogance into that post.  If your faith puts you to work, and if your brother's salvation is at least as important to you as your own, you're doing just fine so far as I can tell.  More power to you.


OK, sorry.

I wish I could say someone else's salvation is as important to me as my own.  Paul did in Romans 9:1-3.  But I'm not there right now.  If I were asked to go to eternal torment instead of someone else, I'd have to say no.  I couldn't do it.  Fortunately, though, that is not how it works.

----------


## Kevin007

> Its not a strawman, just a debatable assertion.  Is faith a work?


nope. Faith is a gift.

----------


## acptulsa

..


> 43. His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?" 
> 
> "You don't understand who I am from what I say to you. 
> 
> Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree."

----------


## Southron

> nope. Faith is a gift.


How does one obtain this gift?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Just to get the thread back on topic...





> *Isaiah 45:9-10
> 
> Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker,
> those who are nothing but potsherds
> among the potsherds on the ground.
> 
> Does the clay say to the potter,
> What are you making?
> Does your work say,
> The potter has no hands?*


How many here, as the clay pot, would turn back to the Potter and say "you have no hands"?

----------


## otherone

> How does one obtain this gift?


Can one choose to reject this gift?

----------


## otherone

> How many here, as the clay pot, would turn back to the Potter and say "you have no hands"?


The clay pot only says what the potter tells it to say.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The clay pot only says what the potter tells it to say.


So how ridiculous is it that the clay would say this then?

----------


## otherone

> So how ridiculous is it that the clay would say this then?


It's ridiculous to obey the will of God?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can one choose to reject this gift?


No.   The Bible describes man (in several places...like Ephesians 2) as being spiritually dead in sins.  The Bible says that God's elect people are "made alive" by grace.  Dead men cannot reject being made alive. Dead men can't do anything.  When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, there was no way for Lazarus to reject being made alive.  He was dead and rotting away in a tomb, and God by His sovereign grace made him alive again.  No possibility of rejecting it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's ridiculous to obey the will of God?


What will?  God's decree that forms the fabric of time itself?  Or God's commands like You Shall Not Steal?

As for God's decree, it's not so much ridiculous to disobey it as it is impossible to disobey it.  But yes, it is certainly ridiculous to disobey God's commands.

----------


## otherone

> Dead men cannot reject being made alive. Dead men can't do anything.


You infer that "alive men" can.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You infer that "alive men" can.


No I don't.  When a person is made alive, he is alive.  No man can reject being made alive.

----------


## otherone

> As for God's decree, it's not so much ridiculous to disobey it as it is impossible to disobey it.  But yes, it is certainly ridiculous to disobey God's commands.


Who decides if we disobey?  What are the consequences of our choices?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who decides if we disobey?  What are the consequences of our choices?


Eternal punishment.

----------


## otherone

> No man can reject being made alive.


So being dead or alive has nothing to do with it, then.

----------


## otherone

> Eternal punishment.


So we choose eternal punishment?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So being dead or alive has nothing to do with it, then.


Why would you say that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So we choose eternal punishment?


You choose it, yes.  But God predestines your choices.  God makes some pots for glory and some for destruction.

----------


## otherone

> Why would you say that?


You wrote that dead men don't have the capacity to choose life, and then wrote that "alive" men can't choose either, so being alive or dead is not relevant....no one has the choice.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You wrote that dead men don't have the capacity to choose life, and then wrote that "alive" men can't choose either, so being alive or dead is not relevant....no one has the choice.


Right.  No one has the choice to be made alive.




> *Romans 9:17, 18
> 
> It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy...
> 
> ...Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.*

----------


## Terry1

> Right.  No one has the choice to be made alive.


Actually--they do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually--they do.


Did Lazarus have a choice to be made alive?

----------


## Terry1

Proof that the Potter is patient with the clay and begs them to return unto Him.  The clay has perfect freedom, choice and a free will to conform or not to conform here:

Jeremiah 18:

6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

----------


## Terry1

> Did Lazarus have a choice to be made alive?


Was Lazarus ever truly dead?  Why did the Lord raise him back to this life?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Was Lazarus ever truly dead?  Why did the Lord raise him back to this life?


Yes Lazarus was truly dead.  The Lord raised him to life to prove that he had power over death.

Jesus has power over spiritual death as well...and we are all dead.  Man is not free.  Man is dead.

----------


## pcosmar

> Did Lazarus have a choice to be made alive?


Did Job?

Or was Job Dead Flesh?

----------


## Terry1

> Yes Lazarus was truly dead.  The Lord raised him to life to prove that he had power over death.
> 
> Jesus has power over spiritual death as well...and we are all dead.  Man is not free.  Man is dead.


Is mankind free to choose life over death--God over satan?  


Is man dead if he believes?

----------


## moostraks

> Proof that the Potter is patient with the clay and begs them to return unto Him.  The clay has perfect freedom, choice and a free will to conform or not to conform here:
> 
> Jeremiah 18:
> 
> 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
> 
> 7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, nto pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
> 
> 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
> ...


S_F has ignored Jeremiah already...

----------


## eduardo89

> S_F has ignored Jeremiah already...


God does not say 'I'll choose which vessels to destroy and which to elevate, and I will choose arbitrarily and beyong reproach, because I'm God and I can do whatever I want.' What God is saying to Israel, first through Jeremiah, back when Israel faced the prospect of exile and later on through St. Paul when the destruction of Jerusalem was nearing is very simple. He is saying 'I can make of you a vessel of beauty, or I can make a vessel fit for destruction, and it all depends on whether or not you will hear my voice, repent, and turn from your evil ways.'

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5209643

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is mankind free to choose life over death--God over satan?


No.  Dead men don't choose anything.  Their bones sit in the ground and rot.  Dead men are incapable of doing anything.





> Is man dead if he believes?


If a man believes, he has been made alive.





> Ephesians 2:3-5
> 
> Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.


All of us are dead in sins, and objects of God's wrath.  But God so loved His elect people, that He made them alive with Jesus even when we were dead in sins and unable to respond.  This was done totally by God's grace.  It was nothing in man.

----------


## Terry1

> If a man believes, he has been made alive.


Then why would you tell anyone they're not saved or a Christian if they tell you that they believe Jesus Christ is Lord and savior?

Have you placed some *conditions* upon what you call the *free gift* then?

----------


## Terry1

> S_F has ignored Jeremiah already...


Yes, because that doesn't *seem to reconcile with the other scripture he's quoted--so that won't get acknowledged probably.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then why would you tell anyone they're not saved or a Christian if they tell you that they believe Jesus Christ is Lord and savior?
> 
> Have you placed some *conditions* upon what you call the *free gift* then?


If you believe the false gospel of Gnosticism, then you haven't been made alive.  That is how I can say that.

----------


## moostraks

> God does not say 'I'll choose which vessels to destroy and which to elevate, and I will choose arbitrarily and beyong reproach, because I'm God and I can do whatever I want.' What God is saying to Israel, first through Jeremiah, back when Israel faced the prospect of exile and later on through St. Paul when the destruction of Jerusalem was nearing is very simple. He is saying 'I can make of you a vessel of beauty, or I can make a vessel fit for destruction, and it all depends on whether or not you will hear my voice, repent, and turn from your evil ways.'
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5209643


 Maybe some description of hand creating pottery would be helpful here? I am thinking of the process which seems to be escaping certain readers.

----------


## Terry1

> If you believe the false gospel of Gnosticism, then you haven't been made alive.  That is how I can say that.


So now you're back peddling here and claiming that there is a condition placed upon that which you formerly said was "unconditional election"--Confess with the mouth and you're saved--wala!  So what must we then *do Sola to be saved if our confessions of belief are not good enough?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So now you're back peddling here and claiming that there is a condition placed upon that which you formerly said was "unconditional election"--Confess with the mouth and you're saved--wala!  So what must we then *do Sola to be saved if our confessions of belief are not good enough?


If you confess a false gospel, then that is evidence that you have not been elected.  The most immediate fruit of regeneration is a belief in the gospel of grace. 

You don't believe in the gospel of free grace Terry1.

----------


## Terry1

> If you confess a false gospel, then that is evidence that you have not been elected.  The most immediate fruit of regeneration is a belief in the gospel of grace. 
> 
> You don't believe in the gospel of free grace Terry1.


So then-- you are saying that there is a right way and a wrong way to believe then and that our confessions of belief mean nothing to God.

But God's word says this:  

Romans 10:9 *If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved*. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

So beyond this Sola--what is it that you believe we need to do to be saved?

----------


## pcosmar

> If you confess a false gospel, then that is evidence that you have not been elected.


There is still hope for you,, if you will repent and believe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So then-- you are saying that there is a right way and a wrong way to believe then and that our confessions of belief mean nothing to God.
> 
> But God's word says this:  
> 
> Romans 10:9 *If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved*. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."
> 
> So beyond this Sola--what is it that you believe we need to do to be saved?



There is nothing a man "has to do" to be saved.  That ITSELF is the false gospel that you believe in and preach.

Jesus has saved perfectly all those for whom He died.  If you attempt to add to His already perfect work, like you do, then you believe in a false gospel that does not save.

----------


## Terry1

> There is nothing a man "has to do" to be saved.  That ITSELF is the false gospel that you believe in and preach.
> 
> Jesus has saved perfectly all those for whom He died.  If you attempt to add to His already perfect work, like you do, then you believe in a false gospel that does not save.



So then you believe that I'm not saved if I confess Jesus as my Lord and savior because I don't interpret the word of God the same way you do--is that correct?  So then--my confession is worthless and Romans 10:9 is not true and I'm still lost and unsaved.

----------


## moostraks

> There is nothing a man "has to do" to be saved.  That ITSELF is the false gospel that you believe in and preach.
> 
> Jesus has saved perfectly all those for whom He died.  If you attempt to add to His already perfect work, like you do, then you believe in a false gospel that does not save.

----------


## moostraks

> There is nothing a man "has to do" to be saved.  That ITSELF is the false gospel that you believe in and preach.
> 
> Jesus has saved perfectly all those for whom He died.  If you attempt to add to His already perfect work, like you do, then you believe in a false gospel that does not save.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So then you believe that I'm not saved if I confess Jesus as my Lord and savior because I don't interpret the word of God the same way you do--is that correct?  So then--my confession is worthless and Romans 10:9 is not true and I'm still lost and unsaved.


Yes, you believe in the false gospel of the Pharisees and the Judiazers.  You believe in the false gospel of man's effort.

But what is the truth?



> *Romans 9:16 
> 
> It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 





> 






Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Are you saying that something is required from man for salvation?

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes, you believe in the false gospel of the Pharisees and the Judiazers.  You believe in the false gospel of man's effort.
> 
> But what is the truth?


...



> Again, please follow the site guidelines and stop making personal posts. Please stick to the issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> SF

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ...



Pardon me sir but that was not a personal attack.

----------


## eduardo89

> Pardon me sir but that was not a personal attack.


Did I ever say it was a personal _attack_?

----------


## acptulsa

> So being dead or alive has nothing to do with it, then.


Sure it does.

God will make you alive--one way, the other way, or both--if you use literal verses to support your misinterpretation of metaphors.

In public.

Don't ask for me.  You remember Orwell.  Metaphors are literal at the Ministry of Truth.

----------


## Brett85

> How many here, as the clay pot, would turn back to the Potter and say "you have no hands"?


No one would.

----------


## acptulsa

> No one would.


God made you say that.  But it doesn't matter because God wills that Sola will never believe you, and won't let this thread die until he asks us probably a hundred times.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No one would.


Yes you would.  You have several times.  Saying God does not create pots for destruction is the same as saying the Potter has no hands.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes you would.  You have several times.  Saying God does not create pots for destruction is the same as saying the Potter has no hands.


No, it isn't.

----------


## moostraks

> Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Are you saying that something is required from man for salvation?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, it isn't.


According to the Bible, yes it is.

Eduardo, do you believe that God has objects predestined for glory and objects predestined for wrath?

----------


## acptulsa

> 


Ooh!  Ooh!  It can strain a gnat and swallow a camel?  Cool!

Does it come with a good metaphor mixer?  Is there a choice of logs for its eyes?  Does it actually answer questions with relevant questions, or just random questions--scratch that, it wouldn't be a Pharisee if it answers with relevant questions, would it..?




> Eduardo, do you believe that God has objects predestined for glory and objects predestined for wrath?


Does it have to be one or the other?  Do you believe God is incapable of glorious wrath?

----------


## moostraks

> According to the Bible, yes it is.
> 
> Eduardo, do you believe that God has objects predestined for glory and objects predestined for wrath?


Is this the same Book you are twisting to shreds, allowed your ancestors to toss out portions of, and the one in which you ignore contrary verses to your opinion? That Book?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is this the same Book you are twisting to shreds, allowed your ancestors to toss out portions of, and the one in which you ignore contrary verses to your opinion? That Book?


So you think that the Bible contains "contrary verses"?   Where are these "contrary verses"?

----------


## acptulsa

> So you think that the Bible contains "contrary verses"?   Where are these "contrary verses"?


Sola, we've quoted hundreds of verses contrary to _your_ opinion and you've ignored every one of them--even if you had to abandon the thread and/or log off to do it.  And the next morning, every morning, you pop up acting like it never happened.  Then, when we don't re-post all those verses five times a day every day, you act like it's because we never found any.

Chase your own tail, puppy.  We don't like the view all that much.

----------


## moostraks

> So you think that the Bible contains "contrary verses"?   Where are these "contrary verses"?





> Sola, we've quoted hundreds of verses contrary to _your_ opinion and you've ignored every one of them--even if you had to abandon the thread and/or log off to do it.  And the next morning, every morning, you pop up acting like it never happened.  Then, when we don't re-post all those verses five times a day every day, you act like it's because we never found any.
> 
> Chase your own tail, puppy.  We don't like the view all that much.


 This exactly^^^

----------


## eduardo89

> According to the Bible, yes it is.


According to your private and fallible interpretation of the Bible.




> Eduardo, do you believe that God has objects predestined for glory


Do I believe that the Elect are predestined? Yes. Whether that is by conditional or unconditional election, I'm not sure.




> and objects predestined for wrath?


Do I believe in unconditional reprobation? No.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, you believe in the false gospel of the Pharisees and the Judiazers.  You believe in the false gospel of man's effort.
> 
> But what is the truth?


But Sola--You're the one who just said that if I confess that Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior that is not enough and that I must believe as you do.  So then you don't believe in unconditional election then because you believe that there's a need for something beyond confession of the mouth--correct?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But Sola--You're the one who just said that if I confess that Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior that is not enough and that I must believe as you do.  So then you don't believe in unconditional election then because you believe that there' a need for something beyond confession of the mouth--correct?



What Jesus do you confess?  The one who has sinful flesh?  The one who died for all men equally and saved no one by His sacrifice?

That is an idol.

----------


## Terry1

> What Jesus do you confess?  The one who has sinful flesh?  The one who died for all men equally and saved no one by His sacrifice?
> 
> That is an idol.


I confess that Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior--isn't that all that's required according to your own doctrine?  Also that there's nothing I can do to undo that same salvation--isn't that what you believe?  So if I believe in doing something good towards the kingdom of God--would that undo my salvation?

----------


## acptulsa

> But Sola--You're the one who just said that if I confess that Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior that is not enough and that I must believe as you do.  So then you don't believe in unconditional election then because you believe that there's a need for something beyond confession of the mouth--correct?


No, of course not!  Believing exactly as Sola does isn't a condition because it's just using what Sola sees as logic and everyone thinks as Sola does (which is easy to believe if you have your head up Sola's ass)  which isn't a condition because it's natural to think like Sola does unless you're not elect like Sola is in which case it isn't natural to twist logic to fit your worldview and misread things so you're not elect because God exists to Glorify Himself and He does that by stocking Heaven with carbon copies of Sola.

Now have we got this straight yet?




> What Jesus do you confess?  The one who has sinful flesh?  The one who died for all men equally and saved no one by His sacrifice?
> 
> That is an idol.


Terry!  Did you change Jesus' flesh?  Bad girl!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, we've quoted hundreds of verses contrary to _your_ opinion and you've ignored every one of them--even if you had to abandon the thread and/or log off to do it.  And the next morning, every morning, you pop up acting like it never happened.  Then, when we don't re-post all those verses five times a day every day, you act like it's because we never found any.
> 
> Chase your own tail, puppy.  We don't like the view all that much.



Please, tell me what verses you think are contrary to what I have been saying (and if it is something I have answered before, I will post the link to the answer and then expect an apology from you for saying that I dodged it).

Thanks,

Sf



P.S.  I have posted literally HUNDREDS of verses that NO ONE here has even remotely tried to answer.  Don't even start...

----------


## Terry1

> No, of course not!  Believing exactly as Sola does isn't a condition because it's just using what Sola sees as logic and everyone thinks as Sola does (which is easy to believe if you have your head up Sola's ass)  which isn't a condition because it's natural to think like Sola does unless you're not elect like Sola is in which case it isn't natural to twist logic to fit your worldview and misread things so you're not elect because God exists to Glorify Himself and He does that by stocking Heaven with carbon copies of Sola.
> 
> Now have we got this straight yet?
> 
> 
> 
> Terry!  Did you change Jesus' flesh?  Bad girl!


I'm giving Sola a golden opportunity here to tell me what he knows and how I can be saved the right way.  We seem to be having some technical difficulty.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I confess that Jesus Christ is my Lord *and savior*--isn't that all that's required according to your own doctrine?  Also that there's nothing I can do to undo that same salvation--isn't that what you believe?  So if I believe in doing something good towards the kingdom of God--would that undo my salvation?


Your savior?  No you don't believe that Jesus alone saves.  You think your efforts save you.

----------


## Terry1

> Your savior?  No you don't believe that Jesus alone saves.  You think your efforts save you.


I don't believe my efforts save me though--I believe Jesus saved me and if I'm saved by Jesus--everything I do good is done by my willingness to do His will in everything I'm called to do of Him.  So if I'm called to do good and I do that good--are you saying that I'm not really saved at all?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't believe my efforts save me though--I believe Jesus saved me and if I'm saved by Jesus--everything I do good is done by my willingness to do His will in everything I'm called to do of Him.  So if I'm called to do good and I do that good--are you saying that I'm not really saved at all?


Do you believe that after you are saved (if you even do believe that you are saved at a certain point, which obviously you don't), that your works or efforts contribute anything whatsoever to salvation?

----------


## Terry1

> Do you believe that after you are saved (if you even do believe that you are saved at a certain point, which obviously you don't), that your works or efforts contribute anything whatsoever to salvation?


But didn't Jesus call us to do good things in this world unto others?  If we're obeying Jesus--how can we not be saved by what He told us to do and be through Him?

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't believe my efforts save me though--I believe Jesus saved me and if I'm saved by Jesus--everything I do good is done by my willingness to do His will in everything I'm called to do of Him.  So if I'm called to do good and I do that good--are you saying that I'm not really saved at all?


Of course not.  If helping people isn't you insulting God's gift to you, but rather a sign that you're of the elect, then what is spending all day being a 'motivational leader' at work (which might mean being sarcastic to perceived goldbricks) and 'advocating for the Gospel' (which definitely means twisting words, denying true statements and being sarcastic as hell) a sign of?  Election?

Is that Biblical?

So, of course a way must be found to make you not saved or else...  Well, nothing good could come of you being saved.  Except to _you_, of course, and the other members of the elect who will have the pleasure of your company for eternity, but all that doesn't count because neither you nor any of them are Sola.

We're looking for a loophole that will get _Sola_ in without him having to do anything messy or inconvenient like feeding or comforting someone.  Get with the program.

----------


## Brett85

> According to the Bible, yes it is.
> 
> Eduardo, do you believe that God has objects predestined for glory and objects predestined for wrath?


Good night.  Apparently Romans 9 is the only chapter in your entire Bible.  Your distorted interpretation of Romans 9 doesn't trump the entire rest of the Bible which completely disproves limited atonement and unconditional election.

----------


## moostraks

> God does not say 'I'll choose which vessels to destroy and which to elevate, and I will choose arbitrarily and beyong reproach, because I'm God and I can do whatever I want.' What God is saying to Israel, first through Jeremiah, back when Israel faced the prospect of exile and later on through St. Paul when the destruction of Jerusalem was nearing is very simple. He is saying 'I can make of you a vessel of beauty, or I can make a vessel fit for destruction, and it all depends on whether or not you will hear my voice, repent, and turn from your evil ways.'
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5209643





> Proof that the Potter is patient with the clay and begs them to return unto Him.  The clay has perfect freedom, choice and a free will to conform or not to conform here:
> 
> Jeremiah 18:
> 
> 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
> 
> 7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
> 
> 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
> ...





> Jeremiah 18:1-11
> New American Standard Bible (NASB)
> The Potter and the Clay
> 
> 18 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord saying, 2 Arise and go down to the potters house, and there I will announce My words to you. 3 Then I went down to the potters house, and there he was, making something on the wheel. 4 But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make.
> 
> 5 Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, 6 Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potters hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. 7 At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9 Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. 11 So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.





> Please, tell me what verses you think are contrary to what I have been saying (and if it is something I have answered before, I will post the link to the answer and then expect an apology from you for saying that I dodged it).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sf
> 
> 
> 
> P.S.  I have posted literally HUNDREDS of verses that NO ONE here has even remotely tried to answer.  Don't even start...


 There's one posted by three people in this thread alone, which you have not acknowledged. It is how you roll. Your hundreds of verses are Romans 9 repeated which we have attempted to discuss to no avail. You are single minded and this is why subtle responses are flying over your head.

----------


## Terry1

> Of course not.  If helping people isn't you insulting God's gift to you, but rather a sign that you're of the elect, then what is spending all day being a 'motivational leader' at work (which might mean being sarcastic to perceived goldbricks) and 'advocating for the Gospel' (which definitely means twisting words, denying true statements and being sarcastic as hell) a sign of?  Election?
> 
> Is that Biblical?
> 
> So, of course a way must be found to make you not saved or else...  Well, nothing good could come of you being saved.  Except to _you_, of course, and the other members of the elect who will have the pleasure of your company for eternity, but all that doesn't count because neither you nor any of them are Sola.
> 
> We're looking for a loophole that will get _Sola_ in without him having to do anything messy or inconvenient like feeding or comforting someone.  Get with the program.


Yes, I wouldn't like to think that someone would try to justify never doing anything good because they thought that would be an *evil work*.  That would seem contrary to what Jesus told us to be and to do after we become believers.  That would seem to serve satan more than God wouldn't it?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But didn't Jesus call us to do good things in this world unto others?  If we're obeying Jesus--*how can we not be saved by what He told us to do and be through Him*?


That Terry1, right there, is why you are not saved.

A man is saved by CHRIST'S perfect works, not his own works.

----------


## Brett85

> That Terry1, right there, is why you are not saved.
> 
> A man is saved by CHRIST'S perfect works, not his own works.


I know.  You believe that serial killers and serial rapists can be Christians just as long as they believe in what Christ did on the cross.

----------


## Terry1

> That Terry1, right there, is why you are not saved.
> 
> A man is saved by CHRIST'S perfect works, not his own works.


So you don't believe that we are called to do anything--not even doing good unto others?  How can someone believe in Jesus without believing they're supposed to be good and obedient to the two greatest commandments in the NT?

If a starving person came to you and asked you to feed Him and you did--is that an evil work?

----------


## Brett85

> If a starving person came to you and asked you to feed Him and you did--is that an evil work?


Don't you know that you get thrown in hell for doing those kind of good works?    God wants us to just sit around and not do anything.

----------


## Terry1

Sola--how can we love others as we love God if we never do anything to show that same love?  How does anyone or God know you love them unless you do something to show that love?

Sola--God did not politely with apologies *ask you to show your goodness and love to Him and others--He *commanded it*.

----------


## acptulsa

> That Terry1, right there, is why you are not saved.
> 
> A man is saved by CHRIST'S perfect works, not his own works.


That Sola_Fide right there is why you should stop obsessing over whatever mote you see in Terry's eye and get that damned log out of your own.

If you're that sure that Christ's work is _never_ your work then who is it _you_ have in _your_ heart?

Obviously the Potter can't count on _your_ hands.  He might as well smash them, no more of His will than they're doing.




> There's one posted by three people in this thread alone, which you have not acknowledged. It is how you roll.


Thought you wanted an apology from me.  All right.  One little link to one unedited post time stamped before one p.m. CDT today...

Edit:  Been waiting over an hour now...

Edit:  Been waiting over two hours now...

----------


## Terry1

> Don't you know that you get thrown in hell for doing those kind of good works?    God wants us to just sit around and not do anything.


Is that what managers do?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you don't believe that we are called to do anything--not even doing good unto others?  How can someone believe in Jesus without believing they're supposed to be good and obedient to the two greatest commandments in the NT?
> 
> If a starving person came to you and asked you to feed Him and you did--is that an evil work?


That's not what you said.  You said:




> If we're obeying Jesus--*how can we not be saved by what He told us to do* and be through Him.


You don't know the gospel of Jesus Christ and you don't believe it.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is that a _righteousness that is not my own_ is responsible for my salvation.  I am accounted as righteous because of Christ's works ALONE, not anything in me.

This is the gospel of grace that is a stumbling block to so many.

----------


## pcosmar

> This is the gospel of grace that is a stumbling block to so many.


Actually, I believe that the misunderstanding of grace puts a stumbling block in the way of others.

----------


## moostraks

> That's not what you said.  You said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the gospel of Jesus Christ and you don't believe it.  The gospel of Jesus Christ is that a _righteousness that is not my own_ is responsible for my salvation.  I am accounted as righteous because of Christ's works ALONE, not anything in me.
> 
> This is the gospel of grace that is a stumbling block to so many.


Proverbs 4:16 For they cannot sleep unless they do evil;
And they are robbed of sleep unless they make someone stumble.
17 For they eat the bread of wickedness
And drink the wine of violence.
18 But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn,
That shines brighter and brighter until the full day.
19 The way of the wicked is like darkness;
They do not know over what they stumble.
20 My son, give attention to my words;
Incline your ear to my sayings.
21 Do not let them depart from your sight;
Keep them in the midst of your heart.
22 For they are life to those who find them
And health to all their body.
23 Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.
24 Put away from you a deceitful mouth
And put devious speech far from you.
25 Let your eyes look directly ahead
And let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you.
26 Watch the path of your feet
And all your ways will be established.
27 Do not turn to the right nor to the left;
Turn your foot from evil.

If someone is preaching that another person must ignore Scripture in order to uphold the belief system and is making it a problem for the person to actively follow through with the two great commandments then it is they who are the problem.You can tell the tree by its fruits.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That Terry1, right there, is why you are not saved.
> 
> A man is saved by CHRIST'S perfect works, not his own works.


Amen...

Terry, you need to understand the difference between justification and sanctification.  While every believer is sanctified to some degree in this life, and there is not a single believer who isn't, it is not this sanctification that makes him acceptable to God.  Rather, this sanctification is the RESULT of his being made acceptable to God through the righteousness of Christ alone, imputed to his account.

There is no peace to anyone who denies this gospel.




> I know.  You believe that serial killers and serial rapists can be Christians just as long as they believe in what Christ did on the cross.


Stop lying TC.  Sola has answered this for you before, as have I.  There's no such thing as a serial killer/serial rapist that believes in what Christ did on the cross.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you confess a false gospel, then that is evidence that you have not been *regenerated*.  The most immediate fruit of regeneration is a belief in the gospel of grace. 
> 
> You don't believe in the gospel of free grace Terry1.


Fixed it for you.  Please be careful with your terminology.   You don't know whether Terry is one of God's elect or not.  The most you can say is that she is currently unregenerate based on what she confesses.  But God might regenerate her before her death.

The poor wording of some of these posts is giving the enemies of grace something to pounce on "Oh, Sola says Terry is going to Hell" even though I know that wasn't what you meant.

----------


## Terry1

> Amen...
> 
> Terry, you need to understand the difference between justification and sanctification.  While every believer is sanctified to some degree in this life, and there is not a single believer who isn't, it is not this sanctification that makes him acceptable to God.  Rather, this sanctification is the RESULT of his being made acceptable to God through the righteousness of Christ alone, imputed to his account.
> 
> There is no peace to anyone who denies this gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying TC.  Sola has answered this for you before, as have I.  There's no such thing as a serial killer/serial rapist that believes in what Christ did on the cross.


Are these scriptures contradicting themselves or is there a difference between the works of the old law vs "work of faith" under the New Covenant?

"What you need to understand" FF--is that Paul and James are speaking of two different laws.  Paul is referring to--1. dead works under the old law and James is referring to-- 2. works of faith done under the New Covenant of grace *through*--faith.


Romans 4:2 
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Galatians 2:16 
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

James 2:21 
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James 2:24 
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

James 2:25 
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

----------


## Nang

> Are these scriptures contradicting themselves or is there a difference between the works of the old law vs "work of faith" under the New Covenant?
> 
> "What you need to understand" FF--is that Paul and James are speaking of two different laws.  Paul is referring to--1. dead works under the old law and James is referring to-- 2. works of faith done under the New Covenant of grace *through*--faith.
> 
> 
> Romans 4:2 
> For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
> 
> Galatians 2:16 
> ...


There is only one Law of God.

First revealed in the garden to Adam.

Later fully formalized in the wilderness through Moses.

----------


## Nang

BTW, Terry, did you take note of what God says in Jeremiah 18:11:

Thus saith the Lord;* Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you.

*This scripture interprets Isaiah 45:7:

"I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and *create evil;* I, the Lord, do all these things."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are these scriptures contradicting themselves or is there a difference between the works of the old law vs "work of faith" under the New Covenant?
> 
> "What you need to understand" FF--is that Paul and James are speaking of two different laws.  Paul is referring to--1. dead works under the old law and James is referring to-- 2. works of faith done under the New Covenant of grace *through*--faith.
> 
> 
> Romans 4:2 
> For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
> 
> Galatians 2:16 
> ...



No.  Nothing that you say here is Biblical.  Paul made it clear in Romans 2 and 3 that ALL of the law, ceremonial to moral, was what stood over man and condemned him.  There is no "new law" that Christians work to get saved.  Salvation comes from faith in Christ's works, not our works.  This is explained so many times in the Bible, you have to have blinders on not to see it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> BTW, Terry, did you take note of what God says in Jeremiah 18:11:
> 
> Thus saith the Lord;* Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you.
> 
> *This scripture interprets Isaiah 45:7:
> 
> "I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and *create evil;* I, the Lord, do all these things."


Great point.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Don't you know that you get thrown in hell for doing those kind of good works?    God wants us to just sit around and not do anything.


Do you enjoy setting up strawmen?  Does doing so make you happy?

Feeding a starving man is Biblical.  Thinking that doing so will save you or help you stay saved is not.

Why is this complicated?




> No.  Nothing that you say here is Biblical.  Paul made it clear in Romans 2 and 3 that ALL of the law, ceremonial to moral, was what stood over man and condemned him.  There is no "new law" that Christians work to get saved.  Salvation comes from faith in Christ's works, not our works.  This is explained so many times in the Bible, you have to have blinders on not to see it.


Amen.

----------


## Terry1

> There is only one Law of God.
> 
> First revealed in the garden to Adam.
> 
> Later fully formalized in the wilderness through Moses.


It's my opinion that the hyperstaticdicombobulation is the result of the disembodimentalcoronis that leads to the inevitable result of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious too.  So you can't say that the jentacular equals ulotrichous.  This is all true whether you choose to believe it or not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's my opinion that the hyperstaticdicombobulation is the result of the disembodimentalcoronis that leads to the inevitable result of supercalifragilisticexpialidocious too.  So you can't say that the jentacular equals ulotrichous.  This is all true whether you choose to believe it or not.


What are trying to say?  That Nangs post is not clear?   It was perfectly clear.

----------


## Terry1

> BTW, Terry, did you take note of what God says in Jeremiah 18:11:
> 
> Thus saith the Lord;* Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you.
> 
> *This scripture interprets Isaiah 45:7:
> 
> "I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and *create evil;* I, the Lord, do all these things."


I do believe you're wrong about that according to the creed of winklepicker.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I do believe you're wrong about that according to the creed of winklepicker.


Are you trying to be funny?  Or are you drunk again?

----------


## Terry1

> Are you trying to be funny?  Or are you drunk again?


Not yet--happy hour starts at 7 here.

----------


## moostraks

> *Are you trying to be funny?* *Or are you drunk again*?


And you? 

Oh, btw how is Jeremiah going? and that early american history you promised?<~~ figured I'd add smilieys for you since you think I am angry

----------


## Terry1

> There is only one Law of God.
> 
> First revealed in the garden to Adam.
> 
> Later fully formalized in the wilderness through Moses.


I have no idea why I listen to the Apostle Paul instead of you Nang--He's always tossing these curve balls isn't he.


Romans 3:

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what *law? of works*? Nay: but by the *law of faith.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

Only you could turn "law of faith" into a law of works, Terry.  Actually, scratch that, I could very quickly name two big, pseudo-Christian churches that have their entire theology built around doing so.

"law of faith" means boasting in CHRIST, not in works.  Duh.

----------


## Brett85

> Stop lying TC.  Sola has answered this for you before, as have I.  There's no such thing as a serial killer/serial rapist that believes in what Christ did on the cross.


Ok, then I don't see any difference between your position and what Terry said, but yet SF claimed that she was unsaved simply because she takes the same view that you just expressed, that there's no such thing as a serial killer who believes in what Christ did on the cross.  So quit lying about what she believes and about what every non Calvinist on this forum believes.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Romans 3:
> 
> 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what *law? of works*? Nay: but by the *law of faith.*


Boasting is excluded because we are justified by Christ's works alone...not our works.  

I can never take pride or boast in my salvation, because my works have contributed nothing to it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ok, then I don't see any difference between your position and what Terry said, but yet SF claimed that she was unsaved simply because she takes the same view that you just expressed, that there's no such thing as a serial killer who believes in what Christ did on the cross.  So quit lying about what she believes and about what every non Calvinist on this forum believes.


Sir,  if you can't see the difference in the two, you are lying to yourself.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ok, then I don't see any difference between your position and what Terry said, but yet SF claimed that she was unsaved simply because she takes the same view that you just expressed, that there's no such thing as a serial killer who believes in what Christ did on the cross.  So quit lying about what she believes and about what every non Calvinist on this forum believes.


I don't believe I said anything about any of Terry's statements.  SF is probably, understandably, using Terry's beliefs as expressed elsewhere and reading those into her statements.  I don't think Sola has any issue with anything that I said.  Although he can correct me if I am wrong.

----------


## Terry1

> Only you could turn "law of faith" into a law of works, Terry.  Actually, scratch that, I could very quickly name two big, pseudo-Christian churches that have their entire theology built around doing so.
> 
> "law of faith" means boasting in CHRIST, not in works.  Duh.


I mean--the nerve of Paul, James and John to keep saying stuff like this--  

1 Thessalonians 1:3 
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Thessalonians 1:11 
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

2 Corinthians 11:15 
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.

Revelation 14:13 
And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.
 
Revelation 20:12 
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
 
Revelation 20:13 
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

----------


## Terry1

> Ok, then I don't see any difference between your position and what Terry said, but yet SF claimed that she was unsaved simply because she takes the same view that you just expressed, that there's no such thing as a serial killer who believes in what Christ did on the cross.  So quit lying about what she believes and about what every non Calvinist on this forum believes.


Well--I must admit--I was playing the devil's advocate there by taking their own confessions and using them to expose the hypocrisy of what they say as opposed to what they actually do.

Anyone who was keeping track of that little conversation had to see that what Sola was actually saying is that he doesn't believe that by confessing faith in Jesus as Lord alone will save anyone, but that they must see things exactly as he does and through the same glass in order to be saved.  

So what this means is that Sola actually does not believe in unconditional election but has added his own work through having to believe *a certain way* instead of simply a belief that Christ is Lord--alone and by itself.  

I sort of tricked him into finding himself through his own confession on my side of the fence--although that's not where he wanted to be at all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I mean--the nerve of Paul, James and John to keep saying stuff like this--


The nerve of you to keep repeating over and over again what you have been smacked down on.




> 1 Thessalonians 1:3 
> Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;


Paul is remembering the Thessalonican Christian's good works produced by their faith.  No where in this verse is the idea that a person is saved by works.





> 2 Thessalonians 1:11 
> Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:


Paul is praying that God will give the Thessalonicans faith and good works.  This verse has nothing to do with men doing works to be saved.





> 2 Corinthians 11:15 
> 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.


The ministers of Satan will be judged by their works.  This verse says absolutely nothing about people being saved by their works.  All the people that will be judged by their works will go to Hell because every person has an imperfect righteousness.  God will not allow an imperfect righteousness in His sight.




> [U]Revelation 14:13 
> And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.


This verse says nothing about works required for salvation.  





> Revelation 20:12 
> And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.


All men will be judged according to works.  The ones who have their own works will suffer in Hell for eternity.  The ones who have Christ's works by imputation will have eternal life.





> Revelation 20:13 
> And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.


Every man will be judged according to works.  Anyone not having a life of perfect works will go to Hell.

----------


## Terry1

> The nerve of you to keep repeating over and over again what you have been smacked down on.
> 
> 
> 
> Paul is remembering the Thessalonican Christian's good works produced by their faith.  No where in this verse is the idea that a person is saved by works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whoa--wait a minute here, since when do you change the meaning of the word of God without using the word of God to back that up Sola?  This post of yours is absolutely meaningless without a scripture to back up your interpretation of all of those scriptures themselves.  Git to gittin then.

----------


## Brett85

> Well--I must admit--I was playing the devil's advocate there by taking their own confessions and using them to expose the hypocrisy of what they say as opposed to what they actually do.
> 
> Anyone who was keeping track of that little conversation had to see that what Sola was actually saying is that he doesn't believe that by confessing faith in Jesus as Lord alone will save anyone, but that they must see things exactly as he does and through the same glass in order to be saved.  
> 
> So what this means is that Sola actually does not believe in unconditional election but has added his own work through having to believe *a certain way* instead of simply a belief that Christ is Lord--alone and by itself.  
> 
> I sort of tricked him into finding himself through his own confession on my side of the fence--although that's not where he wanted to be at all.


Yeah, he definitely believes in salvation through works.

----------


## Nang

> Yeah, he definitely believes in salvation through works.



You both are being ridiculous . . .

See my comments regarding *believing in Christ* as actually being *the work of God,* here.

----------


## Brett85

> You both are being ridiculous . . .
> 
> See my comments regarding *believing in Christ* as actually being *the work of God,* here.


But Sola believes that in order to be saved it requires more than just the Holy Spirit changing you.  You have to do extra works as well, such as getting every single theological doctrine correct, such as limited atonement, unconditional election, eternal security, etc.

----------


## otherone

> But Sola believes that in order to be saved it requires more than just the Holy Spirit changing you.  You have to do extra works as well, such as getting every single theological doctrine correct, such as limited atonement, unconditional election, eternal security, etc.


I think he's more concerned about not spreading what he considers to be false doctrine.  In order to do this, he's gotta know his doctrine.

----------


## Brett85

> I think he's more concerned about not spreading what he considers to be false doctrine.  In order to do this, he's gotta know his doctrine.


He believes that in order to be saved, you have to get every single theological doctrine correct.  (Or at the very least all five points of Calvinism correct.  There may be some minor doctrine that he thinks you don't have to get right)  That's extreme works based salvation.

----------


## otherone

> He believes that in order to be saved, you have to get every single theological doctrine correct.  (Or at the very least all five points of Calvinism correct.  There may be some minor doctrine that he thinks you don't have to get right)  That's extreme works based salvation.


It seems to be more of  chicken/egg scenario, in that those sheep who know their shepherds voice will know the doctrine.

----------


## Nang

> He believes that in order to be saved, you have to get every single theological doctrine correct.  (Or at the very least all five points of Calvinism correct.  There may be some minor doctrine that he thinks you don't have to get right)  That's extreme works based salvation.


SF stand for the final authority of Holy Scripture (Sola Scriptura), and every doctrine and belief must accord with the Word of God.

Not as a requirement to attain salvation, but as evidence of salvation.

There is no such thing as a regenerated believer who teaches in opposition to God's written Word.

----------


## Nang

> It seems to be more of  chicken/egg scenario, in that *those sheep who know their shepherds voice will know the doctrine.*


Amen!

----------


## Terry1

> He believes that in order to be saved, you have to get every single theological doctrine correct.  (Or at the very least all five points of Calvinism correct.  There may be some minor doctrine that he thinks you don't have to get right)  That's extreme works based salvation.


Whew yeah, and that's a lot of work for something he claims is a free gift.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> He believes that in order to be saved, you have to get every single theological doctrine correct.  (Or at the very least all five points of Calvinism correct.  There may be some minor doctrine that he thinks you don't have to get right)  That's extreme works based salvation.


And I thought Scholasticism was intense...

----------


## moostraks

> It seems to be more of  chicken/egg scenario, in that those sheep who know their shepherds voice will know the doctrine.





> Amen!


And yet we assess them by:

Galatians 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

----------


## Brett85

> There is no such thing as a regenerated believer who teaches in opposition to God's written Word.


God's written word isn't always as clear as you make it out to be.  It's open to interpretation, especially certain parts.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> God's written word isn't always as clear as you make it out to be.  It's open to interpretation, especially certain parts.


Indeed!  Thank God we have the scholarship and guidance of the Church fathers and saints to help us in many things.

----------


## kathy88

Just checking in hoping for some temp bans. I am disappoint.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just checking in hoping for some temp bans. I am disappoint.


You should be ashamed of yourself for seeking out bans for people who are sincerely trying to hammer out the truth of life.  YOU should be banned.

----------


## kathy88

> You should be ashamed of yourself for seeking out bans for people who are sincerely trying to hammer out the truth of life.  YOU should be banned.


It's a Catholic unsaved Heathen thing.... you wouldn't understand. You should be ashamed at yourself for being the most judgmental person I've ever encountered IRL or on the interwebs, and that's a LOT of people.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's a Catholic unsaved Heathen thing.... you wouldn't understand. You should be ashamed at yourself for being the most judgmental person I've ever encountered IRL or on the interwebs, and that's a LOT of people.


Do I get second place?

While you're at it, are you going to tell Paul he should have been more patient with the Galatians?

----------


## Brett85

> You should be ashamed at yourself *for being the most judgmental person I've ever encountered IRL or on the interwebs*, and that's a LOT of people.


I agree, and it's really not even close.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> SF stand for the final authority of Holy Scripture (Sola Scriptura), and every doctrine and belief must accord with the Word of God.
> 
> Not as a requirement to attain salvation, but as evidence of salvation.
> 
> There is no such thing as a regenerated believer who teaches in opposition to God's written Word.


I agree with this and disagree with it at the same time.  It really depends on what you mean.

Certainly there are issues on which believers can disagree.  Some people have premillennial eschatologies, some amillennial eschatologies, and some postmillennial eschatologies.  One side has to be right (I won't argue over which side, and I'm not even certain I'm on the right side, but two of the three groups are wrong on this issue).  Are the others "teaching in opposition to God's word" on this issue?  Well, not deliberately, at any rate.  Now, of course, Sola_Fide does not demand people have a correct eschatology before he will call them brethren, I'm just using the example to illustrate a point on which believers can disagree.  Baptism is another example.  Neither paedobaptism nor credobaptism is a gospel issue, and I would never dream of considering someone unsaved because he "taught in opposition to God's word" (unknowingly) on that issue.

By contrast, if somebody says that Zeus is God, I think TC would agree with us that such a person unsaved.  Is this "works salvation"?  No.  Salvation isn't conditional on rejecting Zeus as God, but no saved person will ever think Zeus is God.  Knowing that Zeus is not God (If one has heard of Zeus, of course) is an inevitable fruit of being saved.

In SF's mind, Arminianism is similar, in that rejection of Arminianism isn't a condition to being saved, but that a Christian will inevitably resist Arminianism.  I don't quite agree with SF on this point, but I understand where he's coming from, and its not "works salvation."  Personally, I think even a new believer will accept sola fide and sola gratia, but that it might take time to flesh out all of the logical implications of these beliefs.  At the same point, I have a hard time seeing a believer being hostile to these logical conclusions while they are learning.




> He believes that in order to be saved, you have to get every single theological doctrine correct.  (Or at the very least all five points of Calvinism correct.  There may be some minor doctrine that he thinks you don't have to get right)  That's extreme works based salvation.


See above.

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree, and it's really not even close.


Kathy has yet to encounter Marc Carpenter, Chris Duncan, or Chris Adams.

Just for fun in order to make Sola #4 on Kathy's list...

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/evilclark.htm

http://agrammatos.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/white-noise/

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/three.htm

After reading this, Sola will at the most be the fourth most judgmental person you are aware of on the interwebs

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree, and it's really not even close.


Really?  Really?  You should know better than this

----------


## Brett85

> Really?  Really?  You should know better than this


I imagine Carpenter is probably worse, but I've never interacted with him.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I imagine Carpenter is probably worse, but I've never interacted with him.


Carpenter actually told me SF was unsaved.  I could easily imagine an Arminian saying that, but his reason was that Sola is tolerant of tolerant calvinists

----------


## RJB

> I imagine Carpenter is probably worse,


 As far as I'm concerned SF, FF, Carpenter, and Duncan are all inside the same camp.




> but I've never interacted with him


That's why I like him and Duncan.  They stay in their little caves and annoy their own camp until someone on this forum posts their private emails in a thread.

----------


## Nang

> I imagine Carpenter is probably worse, but I've never interacted with him.


I have.

He was not as bad as the followers he unleashed upon our website.

IMO, his followers are probably the cause of his descent into pride and judgmentalism.

----------


## pcosmar

> IMO, his followers are probably the cause of his descent into pride and judgmentalism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> As far as I'm concerned SF, FF, Carpenter, and Duncan are all inside the same camp.


In terms of degree of judgmentalness?  Really?




> That's why I like him and Duncan.  They stay in their little caves and annoy their own camp until someone on this forum posts their private emails in a thread.


I only posted that as a joke in response to the whole "Sola is the most judgmental person on the internet" thing, but I get why you like them, they're too busy attacking their own brothers to actually stand against the world.






> I have.
> 
> He was not as bad as the followers he unleashed upon our website.
> 
> IMO, his followers are probably the cause of his descent into pride and judgmentalism.


Wait, he has followers who are more judgmental than he is?  How?  If they were more judgmental than him, wouldn't he anathemize them for not judging by the gospel, just like anyone who was less judgmental than him?

At any rate, the fact that Carpenter judges SF to be lost for not being judgmental enough makes  the claim that SF is the most judgmental person on the internet to be laughable.  I'm sure there's somebody somewhere that's more judgmental than Carpenter.  I have a hard time believing that they fellowship with him though, if they do exist at all.  For what its worth, Jesusissavior.com and evangelicaloutreach.org are almost as bad but from an Arminian POV.

----------


## RJB

> I only posted that as a joke in response to the whole "Sola is the most judgmental person on the internet" thing, but *I get why you like them, they're too busy attacking their own brothers to actually stand against the world*.


Same as you and Sola.  So stuck on your false formulas to even see beyond your conditioning.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Same as you and Sola.  So stuck on your false formulas to even see beyond your conditioning.


I don't attack my brothers in Christ, unless perhaps I generalize on a political subject.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Same as you and Sola.  So stuck on your false formulas to even see beyond your conditioning.


OK, so do you see a difference between saying "This guy has a completely different view of the gospel than I do, so he's not a Christian" and "This guy has the same gospel I do, but he thinks this other guy is saved, and this other guy thinks that the guy who has the completely different gospel is saved, so he's not a Christian?"  I guess you don't.

----------


## RJB

> OK, so do you see a difference between saying "This guy has a completely different view of the gospel than I do, so he's not a Christian" and "This guy has the same gospel I do, but he thinks this other guy is saved, and this other guy thinks that the guy who has the completely different gospel is saved, so he's not a Christian?"  I guess you don't.


That's what they would say.  *It's more formulas to judge others without knowing what is in their hearts.*

Odd they call it Ouside the Camp, because it sounds like you'd be right at home inside their camp.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's what they would say.  *It's more formulas to judge others without knowing what is in their hearts.*
> 
> Odd they call it Ouside the Camp, because it sounds like you'd be right at home inside their camp.


Wait, what?

That post made no sense.  But I admire a good number of the people who have made OTC's "heterodoxy Hall of Shame."  I wouldn't get along there at all, whether it deserves to be called "Outside" the camp or not.

But, we already have a thread devoted to discussing these losers.  I only mentioned them here to rebut the absurdity of saying SF is the most judgmental person on the internet.

----------


## acptulsa

> Wait, what?
> 
> That post made no sense.  But I admire a good number of the people who have made OTC's "heterodoxy Hall of Shame."  I wouldn't get along there at all, whether it deserves to be called "Outside" the camp or not.
> 
> But, we already have a thread devoted to discussing these losers.  I only mentioned them here to rebut the absurdity of saying SF is the most judgmental person on the internet.


Please, please don't invite Carpenter here, then.

Besides, we're not much of a carpenter crowd.  More of a walrus type of crowd.

If you know your Lewis Carroll, you'll understand.

----------


## robert68

> To my brothers and sisters who agree with sovereign grace: 
> 
> Here is one example as to why Christianity must be *defended against atheism* and Arminianism in the same breath.


Or else others may be better influenced to reject the state, as once minarchist religious Lew Rockwell was by non religious Murray Rothbard, and numerous others have been. That would be tragic.

----------


## robert68

..

----------


## kathy88

> Wait, what?
> 
> That post made no sense.  But I admire a good number of the people who have made OTC's "heterodoxy Hall of Shame."  I wouldn't get along there at all, whether it deserves to be called "Outside" the camp or not.
> 
> But, we already have a thread devoted to discussing these losers.  I only mentioned them here to rebut the absurdity of saying SF is the most judgmental person on the internet.


Nope. I didn't say he was the most judgmental person on the internet. I said he was the most judgmental person I personally have encountered on the internet. See how that works? That manipulation of what people actually say, let alone assuming what they might mean. This is why we go mad at the circle jerk of hypocrisy in the triumvirate telling anyone who dares enter a religious discussion whether they are or are not in fact Christian, or whether they are or are not going to hell (in Sola's case) using misquotes and assumptions.

----------


## Terry1

> Only you could turn "law of faith" into a law of works, Terry.  Actually, scratch that, I could very quickly name two big, pseudo-Christian churches that have their entire theology built around doing so.
> 
> "law of faith" means boasting in CHRIST, not in works.  Duh.


So if there's only one law as Nang and you say, then why does Paul tell you this here and can you explain in detail why Paul calls this particular law a "curse"?

Galatians 3:13 
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Hint:

1. Law of Moses = Old Covenant = dead works = what Paul says will condemn us = what is done absent the spirit to obtain righteousness.

2. Law of faith = New Covenant = works of faith = what James says will save us = what is done by obedience to the Holy Spirit.

----------


## otherone

> Please, please don't invite Carpenter here, then.
> 
> Besides, we're not much of a carpenter crowd.  More of a walrus type of crowd.
> 
> If you know your Lewis Carroll, you'll understand.


Speak for yourself.....I'm more of the eggman type.
(goo goo goo joob)

----------


## otherone

> OK, so do you see a difference between saying "This guy has a completely different view of the gospel than I do,* so he's not a Christian*" and "This guy has the same gospel I do, but he thinks this other guy is saved, and this other guy thinks that the guy who has the completely different gospel is saved, *so he's not a Christian?*"  I guess you don't.


Why is this discernment (bolded) important?

----------


## Terry1

> I have.
> 
> He was not as bad as the followers he unleashed upon our website.
> 
> IMO, his followers are probably the cause of his descent into pride and judgmentalism.


Ironic how you never see us Catholics/EOC fighting amongst ourselves like these Calvinists/protestants who seem to be at each others throats all of the time.

----------


## moostraks

> I have.
> 
> He was not as bad as the followers he unleashed upon our website.
> 
> IMO, his followers are probably the cause of his descent into pride and judgmentalism.





> Wait, he has followers who are more judgmental than he is?  How?  If they were more judgmental than him, wouldn't he anathemize them for not judging by the gospel, just like anyone who was less judgmental than him...


FF, remember that conversation we had a day or two ago when I said that some think OTC doesn't go far enough? Remember how I said it was probably certain folks which were a bird in his ear for progressing to where he is at now? This is how hate and arrogance work. They thrive on an audience and victims.

----------


## moostraks

> As far as I'm concerned SF, FF, Carpenter, and Duncan are all inside the same camp.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I like him and Duncan.  They stay in their little caves and annoy their own camp until someone on this forum posts their private emails in a thread.


 agree...completely
Just parking this here for irony:



> I don't attack my brothers in Christ, unless perhaps I generalize on a political subject.


Nang and FF criticize others who offend them for not accepting them because their rudeness has a different parameter. Smh...

----------


## Nang

> So if there's only one law as Nang and you say, then why does Paul tell you this here and can you explain in detail why Paul calls this particular law a "curse"?
> 
> Galatians 3:13 
> Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
> 
> Hint:
> 
> 1. Law of Moses = Old Covenant = dead works = what Paul says will condemn us = what is done absent the spirit to obtain righteousness.
> 
> 2. Law of faith = New Covenant = works of faith = what James says will save us = what is done by obedience to the Holy Spirit.




You are mixing facts about the Moral *Law* of God, with details of the two major *Covenants.*

Two different theological considerations; related but distinct.

----------


## moostraks

> You are mixing facts about the Moral *Law* of God, with details of the two major *Covenants.*
> 
> Two different theological considerations; related but distinct.





> Probably what upsets Horton is Orthodoxy’s willingness to allow a plurality of paradigms for explaining our salvation in Christ: economic, therapeutic, covenantal, military, pedagogical, and forensic. The early Church dogmatized on Christology and the Trinity but it did not dogmatize on soteriology. Protestantism assumes that there was a clear and definite teaching of sola fide in the early church, but the historical evidence does not support that assumption. Justification was not a theological issue in the pre-Augustinian tradition (McGrath 1986a:19). Alister McGrath’s magisterial Iustitia Dei: A history of the Christian doctrine of Justification draws attention to the fact that for the first three hundred fifty years the church’s teaching on justification was “inchoate and ill-defined” (see McGrath 1986a:23). J.N.D. Kelly notes that there were a variety of competing theories of salvation in the early church, even within the same theologian! (1960:375) In other words, the early Church did not teach sola fide! If Pastor Horton wishes to dispute these observations all he needs to do is provide evidence from the Church Fathers or councils in support of sola fide.
> 
> Much of the early Christians’ understanding of salvation was influenced by the Incarnation. This is the idea of Christ as the Second Adam recapitulating or summing up human existence. J.N.D. Kelly wrote in Early Christian Doctrines:
> 
> Running through almost all the patristic attempts to explain the redemption there is one grand theme which, we suggest, provides the clue to the fathers’ understanding of the work of Christ. This is none other than the ancient idea of recapitulation which Irenaeus derived from St. Paul, and which envisages Christ as the representative of the entire race. . . . . The various forms of the sacrificial theory frankly presupposes it, using it to explain how Christ can act for us in the ways of substitution and reconciliation. The theory of the Devil’s rights might seem to move on a rather different plane, but it too assumes that, as the representative man, Christ is a fitting exchange for mankind held in the Devil’s grasp (1960:376-377).
> 
> This linking of our salvation with Christ’s Incarnation can also be seen in the Nicene Creed:
> 
> For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man (Emphasis added).
> ...


http://orthodoxbridge.com/response-to-michael-horton/

----------


## Nang

So in short . . . the repeated words of sinful men are sacred, over and above, the Holy Words of God.

Got it.

I disagree with this view, but why couldn't you simply put this belief of yours into your own words?

You are wasting lots of bandwidth . . .

----------


## RJB

> So in short . . . the repeated words of sinful men are sacred, over and above, the Holy Words of God.
> 
> Got it.


That is not what she said.

----------


## eduardo89

> So in short . . . the repeated words of sinful men are sacred, over and above, the Holy Words of God.
> 
> Got it.


-rep for making things up.

----------


## moostraks

> So in short . . . the repeated words of sinful men are sacred, over and above, the Holy Words of God.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> I disagree with this view, but why couldn't you simply put this belief of yours into your own words?
> 
> You are wasting lots of bandwidth . . .





> I have decided to shun her.





> Shunning is the act of social rejection, the deliberate avoiding association with, and habitually keeping away from, an individual or group. It is a sanction against association, often associated with religious groups and other tightly knit organizations and communities. Targets of shunning can include, but are not limited to, apostates, whistleblowers, dissidents, people classified as "sinners" or "traitors" and other people who defy or who fail to comply with the standards established by the shunning group(s).


http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tm.../Shunning.html

Don't make a liar out of yourself again...

Oh, and it seems as though there is a reading comprehension problem going on:

----------


## Terry1

> So in short . . . the repeated words of sinful men are sacred, over and above, the Holy Words of God.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> I disagree with this view, but why couldn't you simply put this belief of yours into your own words?
> 
> You are wasting lots of bandwidth . . .


Bandwidth is cheap--intelligence is rare.

----------


## Terry1

> You are mixing facts about the Moral *Law* of God, with details of the two major *Covenants.*
> 
> Two different theological considerations; related but distinct.


LOL--no--I have no idea how you come up with this stuff, nor do a care, but unless you can biblically and scripturally prove me wrong, then this post is worthless you've made.  

Show me scripturally where there is "only one law" and one covenant in the entire bible.  Give me proof.

The Old Testament was the Law of Moses--The New Testament is the Law of Faith.  Prove to me that's wrong then.

Acts 13:39 
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses

Romans 3:27 
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Or else others may be better influenced to reject the state, as once minarchist religious Lew Rockwell was by non religious Murray Rothbard, and numerous others have been. That would be tragic.


Murray was a secular jew, not atheist.  And Murray defended people of religion when it became popular for atheist anarcho-libertarians to make a hobby of slandering and insulting religious people.   




> Parenthetically, I am getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has long been endemic to the libertarian movement. Religion is generally dismissed as imbecilic at best, inherently evil at worst. *The greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious,* most of them Christian.

----------


## Nang

> LOL--no--I have no idea how you come up with this stuff, nor do a care, but unless you can biblically and scripturally prove me wrong, then this post is worthless you've made.  
> 
> Show me scripturally where there is "only one law" and one covenant in the entire bible.  Give me proof.


One Law, two major covenants.

If you want proof, read the Bible for yourself.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Or else others may be better influenced to reject the state, as once minarchist religious Lew Rockwell was by non religious Murray Rothbard, and numerous others have been. That would be tragic.


What logical corrolation does atheism have with anarcho-capitalism?  I see none.  Rothbard was inconsistent, his deontological morals could not properly be established or defended under a natural law ethic.

----------


## RJB

The war is over.




> Even if that man knows simply "Jesus died in my place"...  God makes a person believe the gospel.


That's all of us

----------


## William Tell

> The war is over.
> 
> 
> 
> That's all of us


Now you just need to convince Sola Fide that you believe that he did, so....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The war is over.
> 
> 
> 
> That's all of us




No it isn't.  Rome does not teach this.

----------


## robert68

> What logical corrolation does atheism have with anarcho-capitalism?  I see none.  Rothbard was inconsistent, his deontological morals could not properly be established or defended under a natural law ethic.


I didn’t say there was a correlation (not to suggest there isn’t). Sola referred to atheism as a bad thing. And since he occasionally identifies himself as anti-state, it’s relevant that the most influential anarchist libertarian of the last 40 plus years was non-religious, and that it was he who most influenced the religious Lew Rockwell to become anarchist. Tom Woods also comes to mind, as one who doesn’t cite Bible verses as what moved him to the anti-state position. Principled libertarianism isn’t being sold in  books and articles and speaking to audiences by the quoting of Bible verses and use of religious jargon.

----------


## acptulsa

> No it isn't.  Rome does not teach this.


Are you really saying God is powerless in the face of Rome to straighten someone out?

----------


## Terry1

> One Law, two major covenants.
> 
> If you want proof, read the Bible for yourself.


How can there be only one law and two covenants?  Do you understand the meaning of the word Covenant at all, the word alone and by itself means--"law".

So then you don't believe that the Law of Moses was a law or that the Law of faith is not a law?  Which one Nang?

Acts 13:39 
 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses

Romans 3:27 
 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

There is a very good reason that the Law of Moses was placed in the side of the Ark of the Covenant and Gods perfect Law placed top dead center.  It was to prove that the Law of Moses was a temporal Law and that God's perfect Law (Ten Commandments)-- is at the very center of the will of God.

Deuteronomy 31
 26Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee

The Law of Moses was always the Law that Apostle Paul referred to when he told you that was the "cursed law of dead works".  The same law that Paul tells us not to do because it was done absent the spirit of the Lord to obtain righteousness.

The Law of Faith under the New Covenant is what Paul, James and John tell you *to do* which is described as "works of faith"--"faith alone without works is dead" and John tells us in Revelation that we will all be judged by those same works.  

This is where your Calvinist doctrine falls short and Calvin himself who wrote it.  This is also evidence that the ancient church teachings were scrapped by the reformers in effort to corrupt Gods word and recreate their own version and interpretation of the word of God.

----------


## Terry1

Hello?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I didn’t say there was a correlation (not to suggest there isn’t). Sola referred to atheism as a bad thing. And since he occasionally identifies himself as anti-state, it’s relevant that the most influential anarchist libertarian of the last 40 plus years was non-religious, and that it was he who most influenced the religious Lew Rockwell to become anarchist. Tom Woods also comes to mind, as one who doesn’t cite Bible verses as what moved him to the anti-state position. Principled libertarianism isn’t being sold in  books and articles and speaking to audiences by the quoting of Bible verses and use of religious jargon.


There is this undercurrent in your thinking (I see it all the time on the internet) that atheism has a default position of anti-statism.  Please do not delude yourself.  The VaAST MAJORITY of the secularists in this world are statists.  Secondly,  atheistic worldviews cannot non arbitrarily defend moral positions...and liberty is a moral position.

----------


## pcosmar

> No it isn't.  Rome does not teach this.


You seem to have a fixation there..

Let me ask you a question,, Do you believe that there are Christian Believers in the False Church  (Mystery Babylon) of Revelation?
*Are there believers within it?* Whatever you believe that church to be.

----------


## acptulsa

> There is this undercurrent in your thinking (I see it all the time on the internet) that atheism has a default position of anti-statism.  Please do not delude yourself.  The VaAST MAJORITY of the secularists in this world are statists.  Secondly,  atheistic worldviews cannot non arbitrarily defend moral positions...and liberty is a moral position.


Good point.  Stalin, for example, was secular enough.  If he had a religion, it stated that he was a god himself.

Oh, by the way, did you get a chance to consider this?




> Are you really saying God is powerless in the face of Rome to straighten someone out?

----------


## Nang

> How can there be only one law and two covenants? Do you understand the meaning of the word Covenant at all, the word alone and by itself means--"law".
> 
> So then you don't believe that the Law of Moses was a law or that the Law of faith is not a law? Which one Nang?
> 
> Acts 13:39 
> And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses
> 
> Romans 3:27 
> Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
> ...



There is one moral Law of God.  It was first revealed to Adam in the garden when God commanded him to believe in the Godly provisions for life, and to turn away from what was forbidden to avoid death.  Genesis 2:16-17

Whenever we hear or speak about the responsibility of all men to BELIEVE and REPENT this moral Law is reiterated.  

Adam broke this Law, and indeed was sentenced to the curse of death for so doing, but the Law remained.  Just because Adam broke the Law, and his guilt was imputed to all his seed after him, his fall did not nullify the Words and Law of God.   All men, now unable to keep this moral Law, are still held responsible and accountable to keep it and to BELIEVE in God and REPENT from sinfulness.

This very same Law was made known to the nation of Israel, through Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on the Mount.  Moses received the formal Law with added details, to further reveal to the Israelites the holy standards and requirements as to what was necessary to obey God, BELIEVE God (Exodus 20:1-12), and how to REPENT from doing evil (Exodus 20:13-17)

The purpose of republicating the moral Law to the nation of Israel, was to reveal to the Israelites how far short they fell from meeting God's holy standards of BELIEF and REPENTANCE.

The moral Law was given to show sinners their need of a Savior.  So within the Ten Commandments, we see the preaching of the gospel promises of a Messiah.

When the promised Savior came into this world, He sinlessly fulfilled all the moral Law on behalf of those He represented as Mediator between God and men.  He did for those the Father gave Him to redeem, what they could never do for themselves.  And while He lived and accomplished this righteousness, Jesus Christ reiterated the moral Law once again:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  The second is like it:  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."  Matthew 22:37-40

So, in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament, the moral Law of God remained, for the moral Law is eternal.  Matthew 24:35.  The moral Law is nothing less than the spoken/written Words of God.

Even though Christians cannot find salvation by successfully obeying the Law, they do find salvation by faith in Jesus Christ fulfilling all the moral Law on their behalf.  (Romans 3:19-26)

And when a soul is regenerated to new spiritual life, his heart is changed and the moral Law is engraved on his new heart.  The Christian is gifted with faith to BELIEVE God and to love God and His Law, as well as he is gifted with the Spirit to REPENT from his sins.  So the Christian lives according to the same moral Laws given to Adam and to Moses and to Israel willfully and with thanksgiving.  See I John 2:3-11, 24-25, 3:4-9, 21-23, 5:1-3.

These N.T. scriptures reveal to believers a *"Third Use of The Law."
*
One Law:  *Three Purposes*

1.  To reveal the depths of human sinfulness.

2.  To reveal the human need of a Savior provided and promised from God.

3.  To reveal lawful and sanctified living, through faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone.

Now, besides this one, eternal, moral Law of God, there are many natural laws within the creation.

There is the "law of sin," whose wages is death.  (Romans 7:21-24)  There are civil laws and natural laws; e.g. the law of gravity, the laws of physics, etc.  These all manifest and stem from the one moral Law of God.

And for the regenerated believer, there is the new "law of faith" that is naturally manifested when trusting Christ for Justification and everlasting life, and trusting in the Holy Spirit for guideance, holiness, and preservation unto everlasting life.  (Romans 3:28-5:5)   And as the natural laws stem from the one moral Law, so the _new spiritual "law of faith" stems from the one, eternal, moral Law of God . . as a gift from God to His people._

I will touch on the two major Covenants later, which is a different subject, that stem from God's eternal decrees.

----------


## pcosmar

> There is one moral Law of God.  It was first revealed to Adam in the garden when God commanded him to believe in the Godly provisions for life, and to turn away from what was forbidden to avoid death.  Genesis16-17


Say what? Genesis16 and 17, is long after Adam and says nothing about any covenant between God and Adam..

It is dealing with Abraham. (not Adam) and actually with Hagar the mother of Ishmael,

Please post the covenant with Adam,, I would be interested in such.

----------


## Nang

> Say what? Genesis16 and 17, is long after Adam and says nothing about any covenant between God and Adam..
> 
> It is dealing with Abraham. (not Adam)
> 
> Please post the covenant with Adam,, I would be interested in such.


Oops, typo!  It is fixed.  The correct reference is Genesis 1:16-17.

Thank you for catching my error.

I will work up something on the covenants when I find more time.

Meanwhile, there are several covenants in scriptures, but the two major Covenants are the "Covenant of Works (aka 'Covenant of Creation')" and the "Covenant of Grace."

The Covenant of Works made with Adam is revealed in Chapters One and Two of Genesis.  

All the human descendants of Adam live according to one of these or the other.

Abraham received two kinds of promises; earthly and spiritual, which ultimately encompassed him within the Covenant of Grace.  (Genesis 22:13-18)

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Good point.  Stalin, for example, was secular enough.  If he had a religion, it stated that he was a god himself.
> 
> Oh, by the way, did you get a chance to consider this?


Stalin was expelled from Seminary.

----------


## pcosmar

> Oops, typo!  It is fixed.  The correct reference is Genesis 1:16-17.
> 
> Thank you for catching my error.





> God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,


The Sun and Moon.. And that is a covenant?

Perhaps you should just read the Book,, instead of whatever teacher you are following.




> He also told them this parable: "Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?

----------


## VIDEODROME

Is the Potter left handed or right handed?

----------


## acptulsa

> Is the Potter left handed or right handed?


Now you've done it.

Calvinists only answer questions with questions.  And when you get the question you're damned to eternal torment because you can't answer it.  If you say God's right handed, you're damned for saying it because God is perfect so He must be ambidextrous.  If you say He's ambidextrous then you're saying whomever sitteth on God's left hand is just as good as Jesus, who sits on His right hand.  And woe be to he who dares to call God left-handed!  Verily I say unto thee the stake is kindled for thee!

Yer screwed.

----------


## pcosmar

> Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  Rome does not teach this.
> 
> 
> You seem to have a fixation there..
> 
> Let me ask you a question,, Do you believe that there are Christian Believers in the False Church  (Mystery Babylon) of Revelation?
> *Are there believers within it?* Whatever you believe that church to be.


I really would like a straight answer to this.

----------


## Nang

> The Sun and Moon.. And that is a covenant?
> 
> Perhaps you should just read the Book,, instead of whatever teacher you are following.




Do you deny the Covenant of Works with some reasoning, or have you just never heard about it before?

Read the link.  It is short.  Or Google the subject.  It is not anything I have invented, but is a known theological view and scriptural conclusion held by many Christians.

----------


## Nang

The two major covenants made by God with men in time, come from the Everlasting Covenant ("The Covenant of Redemption") made amongst the Godhead, prior to creation.

Here is a quick overview.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Now you've done it.
> 
> Calvinists only answer questions with questions.  And when you get the question you're damned to eternal torment because you can't answer it.  If you say God's right handed, you're damned for saying it because God is perfect so He must be ambidextrous.  If you say He's ambidextrous then you're saying whomever sitteth on God's left hand is just as good as Jesus, who sits on His right hand.  And woe be to he who dares to call God left-handed!  Verily I say unto thee the stake is kindled for thee!
> 
> Yer screwed.


Mind blown

----------


## pcosmar

> Do you deny the Covenant of Works with some reasoning, or have you just never heard about it before?
> 
> Read the link.  It is short.  Or Google the subject.  It is not anything I have invented, but is a known theological view and scriptural conclusion held by many Christians.


So it is is not in the Bible.. but is in some commentary.. 
You have posted random verses that have nothing to do with the subject..

I think you do not have any idea what you are talking about,,but just listening to some "teachers". And parroting what they say.

Show me the Covenant in the Bible. The first  covenant I am aware of was with Abraham.

----------


## pcosmar

> URL="http monergism


Monergism.?. What Bible is that?

----------


## moostraks

> The Sun and Moon.. And that is a covenant?
> 
> Perhaps you should just read the Book,, instead of whatever teacher you are following.


I am curious what verses are being used because her "fix" was wrong too.

----------


## moostraks

> Do you deny the Covenant of Works with some reasoning, or have you just never heard about it before?
> 
> Read the link.  It is short.  Or Google the subject.  It is not anything I have invented, but is a known theological view and scriptural conclusion held by many Christians.


And yet she says the church fathers are an unworthy resource. Um yeah, like that is reasonable.

----------


## pcosmar

> I am curious what verses are being used because her "fix" was wrong too.


Well I just read through it again to see if I had missed something... and I see no covenant with Adam.
Just a description of Creation and the Fall.

Maybe it is only written in the Monergism Bible. Of the many translations I have available,, that ain't one of them.

----------


## RJB

> No it isn't.  Rome does not teach this.


I'm a Catholic and the Church's foundation is the sacrifice on the Cross.

----------


## VIDEODROME

What would happen if we all just gave in and said we agreed with Sola Fide?  Would Sola Fide have accomplished something here?  

Or would we still be going to Hell?

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm a Catholic and the Church's foundation is the sacrifice on the Cross.


No it is not! Non-Catholics who hate the Catholic Church obviously know what Catholics believe better than any Catholic!

Just look at what the Catechism has to say:

Catechism #666: The evil Satanic Romanist Church does not have as its foundation the sacrifice on the Cross.


See, I just proved you wrong! And I used a Catholic source to prove it.

----------


## pcosmar

> Or would we still be going to Hell?


For Lying?

I had avoided may of these discussions for some time..

And I finally decide to engage in conversation and he don't wanna talk to me.

----------


## RJB

Thank you sir may I have another.

----------


## otherone

> Secondly,  atheistic worldviews cannot non arbitrarily defend moral positions...and liberty is a moral position.


stick to chapters and verses.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm a Catholic and the Church's foundation is the sacrifice on the Cross.


I have my disagreements with the Roman Church,, as I do with other Religion..
But I do not try to say who is saved and who is not.
I know many Christian folks in the Catholic Church.. And my disagreement with doctrine is not a disagreement with them.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question. Post #793 ,#802

----------


## acptulsa

> I am still waiting for an answer to my question. Post #793 ,#802


I tend to believe that the longer I have to wait for an answer, the greater the compliment.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I tend to believe that the longer I have to wait for an answer, the greater the compliment.


  Likewise for me, fellow damned non-elect heathen.

----------


## Nang

> So it is is not in the Bible.. but is in some commentary.. 
> You have posted random verses that have nothing to do with the subject..
> 
> I think you do not have any idea what you are talking about,,but just listening to some "teachers". And parroting what they say.
> 
> Show me the Covenant in the Bible. *The first covenant I am aware of was with Abraham.*


Well, there is the lesser Noahic Covenant (rainbow) that preceded God establishing covenant with Abraham.  Both of these also stem from the Everlasting Covenant.

Or do you also deny that there was a Covenant to redeem a people in Christ, established by the parties of the Godhead, before creation?  (Ephesians 1:3-12; Acts 13:48b, I Peter 1:2a, Titus 1:1-2, Hebrews 13:20-21)

Do you deny that God established the moral Law with Adam when He gave Adam commands?  Genesis 2:16-17

It is upon both these revelations of *eternal decree* and upon this *forensic basis* that the doctrine of both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace is established and develop.

All the elements of covenant (contractual law) were present here in the first two chapters of Genesis.   There were two participating parties, God and Adam; there were binding requirements (legal commands) to be kept;  there was condition of non-performance stipulated (death); there was promise of benefit upon performance  (life).  The sign of this covenant was the Tree of Life, from which Adam was separated, when he broke the commands and covenant agreement.

Hosea 6:7 speaks of Adam ("man") breaking the covenant through non-performance; however, being eternal in purpose, it remains binding upon all whom Adam represented as federal head.  

 This is core belief related to the Covenant and Gospel of Grace, so if you do not believe it, it is your loss, not mine.

 I just do not understand your hostility, because there is a lot you can read on the subject, apart from my postings on RPF.  There is no reason to be angry at me because I have so been taught; nor is there reason to insult other Christians who so teach.

----------


## pcosmar

> Do you deny that God established the moral Law with Adam when He gave Adam commands?  Genesis 1:16-17


What command?
That verse is the creation of the Sun and Moon. Are you unable to read?


The only thing he told Adam was to not eat of the tree. Period.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Thank you sir may I have another.


"Please, sir, I want some more." —Oliver Twist

----------


## Nang

> What command?
> That verse is the creation of the Sun and Moon. Are you unable to read?
> 
> 
> The only thing he told Adam was to not eat of the tree. Period.


God commanded Adam to multiply his seed, to subdue the earth, to have dominion over the animals, to tend his surroundings, to not eat from the forbidden tree, and to name all the living creatures.

Adam named the animals; that being the only evidence of obedience in the garden.  Adam did not subdue the serpent or exert dominion over him, he did not know his wife, there is no evidence he cared for the garden in any fashion, and he ate from the forbidden tree.  Adam broke covenant with God.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, there is the lesser Noahic Covenant (rainbow) that preceded God establishing covenant with Abraham.


Yes,, that He would never again destroy the world with a Flood. It was a covenant with all life on earth.




> Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
> 
> 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
> 
> 6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
>     by humans shall their blood be shed;
> for in the image of God
>     has God made mankind.
> 
> ...


You still have not shown any covenant with Adam.

----------


## Deborah K

> I just do not understand your hostility, because there is a lot you can read on the subject, apart from my postings on RPF.  There is no reason to be angry at me because I have so been taught; nor is there reason to insult other Christians who so teach.


Really Nang?  You don't understand it?  Even though that is exactly what you do to those with whom you disagree?  Theo for example?  TER for example?  Terry for example?

Edit:  And please explain how referring someone to internet sources supersedes the church fathers?

----------


## Deborah K

> "Please, sir, I want some more." —Oliver Twist


You do know he's referring to 'Animal House', right?

----------


## Nang

> Yes,, that He would never again destroy the world with a Flood. It was a covenant with all life on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> You still have not shown any covenant with Adam.



You just do not see any "covenant" explicitly stated between God and Adam.  Because the exact terminology is absent.   (Just as we believe in a Triune God absent the term, "Trinity" being in the bible . . . at least I assume you believe in the Trinity?)

But the principles and forensic properties of covenant are there, as I have already shown from the Genesis account.

Up to you.  These are my beliefs, but I am not motivated to force them down your throat.  And I am not inclined to argue unbelief for very long.

----------


## Terry1

> There is one moral Law of God.  It was first revealed to Adam in the garden when God commanded him to believe in the Godly provisions for life, and to turn away from what was forbidden to avoid death.  Genesis16-17.


We're not talking about Gods covenant with Abraham though--we're discussing the "two laws"--one that refers to the law of dead works and the other that pertains to faith.

God made covenants with Noah, Abraham and David--these are not the two major covenants.  The two major covenants are the Law of Moses, OT and the Law of faith NT.




> Whenever we hear or speak about the responsibility of all men to BELIEVE and REPENT this moral Law is reiterated.


All of the covenants/laws that God made with anyone were "moral laws"--God can't make any other kind. 




> Adam broke this Law, and indeed was sentenced to the curse of death for so doing, but the Law remained.  Just because Adam broke the Law, and his guilt was imputed to all his seed after him, his fall did not nullify the Words and Law of God.   All men, now unable to keep this moral Law, are still held responsible and accountable to keep it and to BELIEVE in God and REPENT from sinfulness.


According to the word of God--in (3:21)--God covered the sin of Adam and Eve--the 2nd Adam quickened them to Christ.  Jesus went down to hell and free every soul that was of God.  They were all quickened unto Christ and salvation.  The *quickening of Christ* spanned all time, past, present and future.  All souls that belonged to God over all time have been quickened unto Christ--Adam and Eve are not in hell and they are not cursed--God covered their sin, blessed them and they have been quickened unto the Lord.



> This very same Law was made known to the nation of Israel, through Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on the Mount.  Moses received more details to give the Israelites about the holy standards and requirements as to how to BELIEVE God (Exodus 20:1-12) and how to REPENT from doing evil (Exodus 20:13-17)


Yes--the Mosaic Law was a ceremonial Law by where the Israelites were shown through their own failure to keep that law (the law of Moses) is why it was placed in the side of the Ark of the Covenant as a "witness against them" and Gods Ten Commandments were placed top dead center to prove that the Ten Commandments were at the very center of the will of God.  But--the Law of Moses continued until the time of Christ as He was always the Promise to the Israelites.  The Law of Moses ended at the time of Christ--fulfilling the Promise and creating the New Covenant.  The New Covenant did not begin until the time of Christ.

*.Deuteronomy 31:26 
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
*




> The purpose of republicating the moral Law to the nation of Israel, was to reveal to the Israelites how far short they fell from meeting God's holy standards of BELIEF and REPENTANCE.



This "moral law" that you're referring to is the very same "law of Moses" that Paul tells us *not to do* because under that *covenant*--that same *law*--mankind was cursed because of their failure to keep it.  And again--why it was a temporal law that was placed in the side of the Ark--as a reminder of that same failure.  Now we live under the "law of faith"  the *New Covenant* of grace through faith.  This is the "works" and the "law" that Paul tell us *to do* along with James and John just the same.  

*James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.*<<<<These are not dead works under the curse of the Old Law of Moses--These are what is absolutely required under the "Law of Faith"--without them--you can not be of the Elect--your faith is dead and you have fallen back under the curse of the Old Law by not doing them via the Holy Spirit of the Lord.  This is what I have been driving home to all of you for a very long time.




> The moral Law was given to show sinners their need of a Savior.  So within the Ten Commandments, we see the preaching of the gospel promises of a Messiah.


Yes and that "moral law" as you call it-- was the Mosaic Law--not to be confused with the Ten Commandments.  God perfect law--the Ten Commandments could not be done until Jesus fulfilled it on the cross.  The Mosaic Law was very much alive and practiced until the time of Jesus when He fulfilled what mankind could not.




> When the promised Savior came into this world, He sinlessly fulfilled all the moral Law on behalf of those He represented as Mediator between God and men.  He did for those the Father gave Him to redeem, what they could never do for themselves.  And while He lived and accomplished this righteousness, Jesus Christ reiterated the moral Law once again:


Again--yes--you are partly correct, I will give you credit because Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial-law of Moses (dead works) on the cross.  Hence mankind was now living under "the Law of Faith"--the "New Covenant"--The New Testament= 2 different Laws and 2 different Covenants and not "one law" as you have assumed.




> "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  The second is like it:  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."  Matthew 22:37-40
> 
> So, in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament, the moral Law of God remained, for the moral Law is eternal.  Matthew 24:35.  For the moral Law is nothing less than the spoken/written Words of God.


No--that is not correct.  The Mosaic Law was a temporal Law that ended at the time of Christ.  I've posted you scripture to prove that.  The Mosaic Law--that you're calling the "moral Law" was temporal because mankind cursed themselves by their inability to keep that law perfectly and to the letter--proving that only Jesus could do this.  If we were still living under that law and it still existed--we would all still be cursed with death--this is why that law had to end when Jesus fulfilled it and is why Paul tells us that when we fall back into sin--we also fall back under the curse of the Mosaic Law because any *sin* is absent the Spirit of the Lord and the only way to cover our sins is to abide in Christ continually--otherwise we fall back under the curse--here:

*Galatians 3:10 
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

This^^^^^^is the Mosaic Law

Galatians 3:13 
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:*
This^^^^^^is the Mosaic Law

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*1 Thessalonians 1:3 
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;  
2 Thessalonians 1:11 
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:
*
*James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.*
This^^^^is the "Law of Faith" and works done under it are the only path to salvation.





> Even though Christians cannot find salvation by successfully obeying the Law, they do find salvation by faith in Jesus Christ fulfilling all the moral Law on their behalf.  (Romans 3:19-26)


Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law in the context of that scripture here--*20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
*

Here, Paul is talking about being justified by the "law of faith--under the New Covenant*--Romans 2:13 
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.*

Because if you don't understand the difference between these 2 Laws--then the word of God become a contradiction and then as Sola--you have to start changing the scripture to support whatever belief it is that you have by claiming "all doesn't mean all" or that "dead faith doesn't mean dead".  By my interpretation--Gods word then reconciles and you don't have to change words or meaning to make it fit what you've chosen to believe.  Now this reconciles with all of Scripture--James, Paul and John all saying the same thing without having to pervert the context of scripture.






> And when a soul is regenerated to new spiritual life, his heart is changed and the moral Law is engraved on his new heart.  The Christian is gifted with faith to BELIEVE God and to love God and His Law, as well as he is gifted with the Spirit to REPENT from his sins.  So the Christian lives according to the same moral Laws given to Adam and to Moses and to Israel willfully and with thanksgiving.  See I John 2:3-11, 24-25, 3:4-9, 21-23, 5:1-3.


Has nothing to do with the moral laws given to Adam--because all were cursed under the Old Law until Jesus fulfilled "all of the Law" on the cross.  Anything done absent the spirit of the Lord is a curse to mankind--they fall from faith, faith dies and they eventually grieve the Holy Spirit if they don't repent and return to God. Heb. 6:4-John 15:5





> These N.T. scriptures reveal to believers a *"Third Use of The Law."
> *
> One Law:  *Three Purposes*
> 
> 1.  To reveal the depths of human sinfulness.
> 
> 2.  To reveal the human need of a Savior provided and promised from God.
> 
> 3.  To reveal lawful and sanctified living, through faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone.
> ...


.

None of the above in your last quote here biblically support there only being "one law" as you claim.  There are two laws that Paul, James and John all speak of--one is under the curse of the Old Law--(the Mosaic Law=dead works) and the other is the "Law of Faith"= what Paul, James and John tell you *to do* and works done under this Law are done in the spirit of the Lord and the only way a believer can be of the Elect--Justified and saved is by continually abiding in Christ and doing the "works of faith" commanded under the Law of Faith.  

Romans 2:13 
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


James 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You do know he's referring to 'Animal House', right?


I was quite aware of that.

----------


## Deborah K

> I was quite aware of that.


We're old.

----------


## Nang

> Really Nang?  You don't understand it?  Even though that is exactly what you do to those with whom you disagree?  Theo for example?  TER for example?  Terry for example?


Theo has brought false teaching into my denomination; TER is an idolator; Terry reaps the disrespect that she first sows.  

My responses to all three are not meant to be hostile, but to stand in rejection and/or opposition . . for the sake of Truth and Christ's namesake.




> Edit:  And please explain how referring someone to internet sources supersedes the church fathers?


You will find that I quote much more Scripture than I quote from theologians, for Scripture is my final authority.  I elevate no words of men above the Words of God.  I hold to Reformed Confessions/Creeds, and follow the traditional Reformed Regulative Rules for Worship, but these guides and protections serve Scripture; not overrule it.

Sola Scriptura is not the practice of confining oneself to studying the Bible alone, for there is a wealth of information available to help all of us study the Bible, better.  Sola Scriptura means to bring all things . . church teachings and traditions and confessions . . under the scrutiny and final authority of Holy Scripture.

Really . . .

----------


## Dr.3D

> We're old.


Well, old enough to give him the Dickens.

----------


## pcosmar

> God commanded Adam to multiply his seed, to subdue the earth, to have dominion over the animals, to tend his surroundings, to not eat from the forbidden tree, and to name all the living creatures.
> 
> .


Not in Genesis 1:16-17 he didn't.. and that is the verse you gave. Twice.



> 16 God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,


It is in Genisis 2:15 that he tells him not to eat of the tree. And He told him that before woman was created.

And at no time is there ever any mention of a covenant.. That is something that is made up and does not exist in scripture.

----------


## Deborah K

> Theo has brought false teaching into my denomination; TER is an idolator; Terry reaps the disrespect that she first sows.  
> 
> My responses to all three are not meant to be hostile, but to stand in rejection and/or opposition . . for the sake of Truth and Christ's namesake.
> 
> 
> 
> You will find that I quote much more Scripture than I quote from theologians, for Scripture is my final authority.  I elevate no words of men above the Words of God.  I hold to Reformed Confessions/Creeds, and follow the traditional Reformed Regulative Rules for Worship, but these guides and protections serve Scripture; not overrule it.
> 
> Sola Scriptura is not the practice of confining oneself to studying the Bible alone, for there is a wealth of information available to help all of us study the Bible, better.  Sola Scriptura means to bring all things . . church teachings and traditions and confessions . . under the scrutiny and final authority of Holy Scripture.
> ...


Everyone here could just as easily respond exactly the way you just did as it pertains to your belief system and your excuses as to why you would refer someone to the internet as a source for your position.  Why should your reasons be more credible than theirs?  That's rhetorical, Nang.  I don't expect you to answer that.  I'm just trying to point out the double-standards (to put it nicely) that you and FF and Sola practice on a regular basis.

----------


## eduardo89

> Theo has brought false teaching into my denomination; TER is an idolator; Terry reaps the disrespect that she first sows.


Hmm...All their names start with T...interesting...

----------


## Nang

> Not in Genesis 1:16-17 he didn't.. and that is the verse you gave. Twice.


Please forgive me.  I messed up twice, plus I have serious problems with my eyesight, and it is hard for me catch my own mistakes.  I have fixed my error again.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, old enough to give him the Dickens.


And this:

----------


## pcosmar

> Please forgive me.  I messed up twice, plus I have serious problems with my eyesight, and it is hard for me catch my own mistakes.  I have fixed my error again.


Then what verse is the Covenant in.?

I will give you a hint,, Not in the Bible. It is not there.. and I took the time to re read Chapters 1-4. It ain't there.

----------


## eduardo89

> You will find that I quote much more Scripture than I quote from theologians, for Scripture is my final authority.  I elevate no words of men above the Words of God.


Except that is patently untrue. You hold your own words above Scripture (which you confuse with the Word of God, Who is Jesus Christ Himself). 

The Bible does not interpret itself. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter and that interpreter is the Church. There's a reason why the Bible calls the Church the 'Pillar and Ground of the Truth' and does not refer to itself as that.

What you have done is elevate your own mind above and against Scripture.

----------


## Nang

> Everyone here could just as easily respond exactly the way you just did as it pertains to your belief system and your excuses as to why you would refer someone to the internet as a source for your position.  Why should your reasons be more credible than theirs?  That's rhetorical, Nang.  I don't expect you to answer that.  I'm just trying to point out the double-standards (to put it nicely) that you and FF and Sola practice on a regular basis.


There are no double standards being exercised.  You just like to find fault with the three of us, and seek to catch us in imaginary double standards, so you invent them in order to have excuse to report us to get us banned.

I understand.  You have openly stated that is your goal on this forum.

We threaten you and irk you, because you cannot control us by telling us how to think and/or post.   We bring the truth of scripture without hesitation or any of the ecumenical language you feel is so necessary to proclaim the gospel.

----------


## Nang

> Except that is patently untrue. You hold your own words above Scripture (which you confuse with the Word of God, Who is Jesus Christ Himself). 
> 
> The Bible does not interpret itself. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter and that interpreter is the Church. There's a reason why the Bible calls the Church the 'Pillar and Ground of the Truth' and does not refer to itself as that.
> 
> What you have done is elevate your own mind above and against Scripture.




Bah . . .

----------


## Theocrat

> Theo has brought false teaching into my denomination; TER is an idolator; Terry reaps the disrespect that she first sows.  
> 
> My responses to all three are not meant to be hostile, but to stand in rejection and/or opposition . . for the sake of Truth and Christ's namesake.
> 
> 
> 
> You will find that I quote much more Scripture than I quote from theologians, for Scripture is my final authority.  I elevate no words of men above the Words of God.  I hold to Reformed Confessions/Creeds, and follow the traditional Reformed Regulative Rules for Worship, but these guides and protections serve Scripture; not overrule it.
> 
> Sola Scriptura is not the practice of confining oneself to studying the Bible alone, for there is a wealth of information available to help all of us study the Bible, better.  Sola Scriptura means to bring all things . . church teachings and traditions and confessions . . under the scrutiny and final authority of Holy Scripture.
> ...


I have brought false teaching into your denomination, Nang? Have you proven that to be the case, outside of just mere accusation? I refer you back to this post right here, Nang. The invitation is open for you to show, concisely and conclusively, how I have brought false teaching to your denomination. Otherwise, you're just spreading lies and slander about a fellow believer, Nang, which is sowing discord among the brethren (see this thread).

----------


## Nang

> Then what verse is the Covenant in.?
> 
> I will give you a hint,, Not in the Bible. It is not there.. and I took the time to re read Chapters 1-4. It ain't there.


You could not possibly be responding to this post.

If you are, I refuse to repeat myself.

----------


## pcosmar

> Except that is patently untrue. You hold your own words above Scripture (which you confuse with the Word of God, Who is Jesus Christ Himself). 
> 
> The Bible does not interpret itself. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter and that interpreter is the Church. There's a reason why the Bible calls the Church the 'Pillar and Ground of the Truth' and does not refer to itself as that.
> 
> What you have done is elevate your own mind above and against Scripture.


Actually Ed,, The Holy Spirit will interpret,, and teach.

John 14:26



> But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.


John 16:13 



> "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14"He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.…


But it will always conform to the written and recorded Word.
The Book Balances itself.. And the Spirit of God teaches,, each as we are able to receive.

----------


## RJB

I think they mean that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church for the last 2000 years and we are graced to have the Sola-5 on this forum to witness to us as the resurrected Church.  Although I could be mis-reading what they are trying to say.

Remember All doesn't mean All and despite what you've been told, you really don't believe in the sacrifice on the cross.  And St. James wants us to be disrespectful to each other.  Oh and posting phony quotations never made is OK because lying is OK if you are getting to the truth...  I think that's everything.




> Except that is patently untrue. You hold your own words above Scripture (which you confuse with the Word of God, Who is Jesus Christ Himself). 
> 
> The Bible does not interpret itself. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter and that interpreter is the Church. There's a reason why the Bible calls the Church the 'Pillar and Ground of the Truth' and does not refer to itself as that.
> 
> What you have done is elevate your own mind above and against Scripture.

----------


## Deborah K

> There are no double standards being exercised.  You just like to find fault with the three of us, and seek to catch us in imaginary double standards, so you invent them in order to have excuse to report us to get us banned.
> 
> I understand.  You have openly stated that is your goal on this forum.
> 
> We threaten you and irk you, because you cannot control us by telling us how to think and/or post.   We bring the truth of scripture without hesitation or any of the ecumenical language you feel is so necessary to proclaim the gospel.


Relax.  I haven't been reporting you (not lately anyway - no need to as I have noticed you toning it down a bit).   But, no matter how many times you play the victim, and pretend you are innocent, your posts provide the evidence - that is - until a mod comes in and deletes your insults if not your entire post.  It's not your place to come in here and proclaim who is a false prophet, or idolater.  I know you think that is your duty, but this is a private forum with certain guidelines that you must follow in order to participate.  Whining about getting reported for your violations isn't going to change that fact.

I'm just trying to keep it real here, that's all.  You and Sola, especially, need to be held accountable.  

Carry on.

----------


## RJB

BTW, Ed your signature sucks this week.

----------


## pcosmar

> I have my disagreements with the Roman Church,, as I do with other Religion..
> But I do not try to say who is saved and who is not.
> I know many Christian folks in the Catholic Church.. And my disagreement with doctrine is not a disagreement with them.
> 
> I am still waiting for an answer to my question. Post #793 ,#802


Well I am moving this down,, because it keeps getting buried.

----------


## Terry1

> There are no double standards being exercised.  You just like to find fault with the three of us, and seek to catch us in imaginary double standards, so you invent them in order to have excuse to report us to get us banned.
> 
> I understand.  You have openly stated that is your goal on this forum.
> 
> We threaten you and irk you, because you cannot control us by telling us how to think and/or post.   We bring the truth of scripture without hesitation or any of the ecumenical language you feel is so necessary to proclaim the gospel.

----------


## acptulsa

> Likewise for me, fellow damned non-elect heathen.


Ever read any Jean-Paul Sartre?  Can you picture a certain trio of posters being locked in a room together for eternity, and being told it's Heaven?




> Please forgive me.  I messed up twice, plus I have serious problems with my eyesight, and it is hard for me catch my own mistakes.


Can there be any doubt why some of us are leery about you attending to the motes in our eyes..?

----------


## Theocrat

> Relax.  I haven't been reporting you (not lately anyway - no need to as I have noticed you toning it down a bit).   But, no matter how many times you play the victim, and pretend you are innocent, your posts provide the evidence - that is - until a mod comes in and deletes your insults if not your entire post.  It's not your place to come in here and proclaim who is a false prophet, or idolater.  I know you think that is your duty, but this is a private forum with certain guidelines that you must follow in order to participate.  Whining about getting reported for your violations isn't going to change that fact.
> 
> I'm just trying to keep it real here, that's all.  You and Sola, especially, need to be held accountable.  
> 
> Carry on.


Nang can accuse whomever she wants of being a false prophet or idolater. The important thing is that she needs to make sure that she uses the Bible to prove her case, and with that, some deep Christian charity and long-suffering with the ones whom she is accusing.

And I'm just going to throw this out to Nang, as a reminder to all, that she has accused me of being a false teacher, but she has not shown how that is true, by the very principle which she believes that she upholds--_Sola Scriptura_.

----------


## Terry1

> Ever read any Jean-Paul Sartre?  Can you picture a certain trio of posters being locked in a room together for eternity, and being told it's Heaven?
> 
> 
> 
> Can there be any doubt why some of us are leery about you attending to the motes in our eyes..?


It's as the old sayin goes--if you can dish it out--better be able to take it--or something like that. Here's another one--if you can't stand the heat--get out of the attic.

----------


## Terry1

> Nang can accuse whomever she wants of being a false prophet or idolater. The important thing is that she needs to make sure that she uses the Bible to prove her case, and with that, some deep Christian charity and long-suffering with the ones whom she is accusing.
> 
> And I'm just going to throw this out to Nang, as a reminder to all, that she has accused me of being a false teacher, but she has not shown how that is true, by the very principle which she believes that she upholds--_Sola Scriptura_.


You gotta get in line Theo.  I'm still waiting on a couple replies myself.  Wanna share a bag of Cheeto's and coke with me while we're waiting?

----------


## Theocrat

> You gotta get in line Theo.  I'm still waiting on a couple replies myself.  Wanna share a bag of Cheeto's and coke with me while we're waiting?


I'd rather share the bag of Cheetos and some Cokes with Nang, and have all of us sit down at the table with her and discuss her accusations of us in a Biblical, rational, and respectful manner, until all of our points (on whatever side) are heard and understood.

----------


## moostraks

> There are no double standards being exercised.  You just like to find fault with the three of us, and seek to catch us in imaginary double standards, so you invent them in order to have excuse to report us to get us banned.
> 
> I understand.  You have openly stated that is your goal on this forum.
> 
> We threaten you and irk you, because you cannot control us by telling us how to think and/or post.   We bring the truth of scripture without hesitation or any of the ecumenical language you feel is so necessary to proclaim the gospel.

----------


## Terry1

> I'd rather share the bag of Cheetos and some Cokes with Nang, and have all of us sit down at the table with her and discuss her accusations of us in a Biblical, rational, and respectful manner, until all of our points (on whatever side) are heard and understood.


Well--I'll always share my Cheeto's and Coke with you even if Nang won't.  Hey--she's the one losing out on the Cheeto's--more for us then.  She can't say the Cheeto has not been extended to her--we've tried, she rejected the Cheeto.

----------


## Deborah K

> *Nang can accuse whomever she wants of being a false prophet or idolater.* The important thing is that she needs to make sure that she uses the Bible to prove her case, and with that, some deep Christian charity and long-suffering with the ones whom she is accusing.
> 
> And I'm just going to throw this out to Nang, as a reminder to all, that she has accused me of being a false teacher, but she has not shown how that is true, by the very principle which she believes that she upholds--_Sola Scriptura_.



I'm pretty sure such accusations violate the Religion Forum Guidelines.

----------


## Deborah K

> I'd rather share the bag of Cheetos and some Cokes with Nang, and have all of us sit down at the table with her and discuss her accusations of us in a Biblical, rational, and respectful manner, until all of our points (on whatever side) are heard and understood.



This is actually what poor Bryan was attempting to accomplish with his exercise.  He was giving everyone carte blanche in which to proclaim their beliefs with regard to unfavorable religions.   Nang thought it was an attempt at manipulation.  FF, took Bryan up on it.  Sola did too, but has yet to answer Bryan's questions in response to Sola's remarks.

----------


## RJB

> I'm pretty sure such accusations violate the Religion Forum Guidelines.


You are being insensitive to their religious beliefs.  Based on St. James, Sola believes we are commanded by God to be disrespectful to each other.  Respect his ability to exercise his religious freedom to be rude

----------


## moostraks

> I'd rather share the bag of Cheetos and some Cokes with Nang, and have all of us sit down at the table with her and discuss her accusations of us in a Biblical, rational, and respectful manner, until all of our points (on whatever side) are heard and understood.


<~Tired of seeing this and it is getting to the point of ridiculousness.

----------


## pcosmar

> Bah . . .


Humbug.

You post scripture that has nothing to do with the claims you make,, 
Likely from the questionable websites that you got them from.

Try actually reading the Book. Then you would know that the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars had nothing to do with a covenant that did not exist.

----------


## pcosmar

> I really would like a straight answer to this.





> Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  Rome does not teach this.
> 
> 
> You seem to have a fixation there..
> 
> Let me ask you a question,, Do you believe that there are Christian Believers in the False Church  (Mystery Babylon) of Revelation?
> *Are there believers within it?* Whatever you believe that church to be.


Anyone want to take a poke at it.?. I have heard several attacks on folks..
Are there believers there?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Humbug.
> 
> You post scripture that has nothing to do with the claims you make,, 
> Likely from the questionable websites that you got them from.
> 
> Try actually reading the Book. Then you would know that the creation of the Sun, Moon, and stars had nothing to do with a covenant that did not exist.


Although it was the Messiah of the Renewed Covenant (Jesus Christ) who was the creative agent in the creation of the universe, you are correct that the Creation was not according to a covenant.  Covenants are encapsulated like parenthetical statements in an equation.  They are not affected by time so much forward or backward, but being encapsulated and self contained those things that occur temporally _outside_ of that covenant are _not_ a part of that covenant.  The first covenant was made with Adam and was cut long after the Creation was fully-formed.  That first covenant explains some of the drama behind Abel and Seth.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Anyone want to take a poke at it.?. I have heard several attacks on folks..
> Are there believers there?


There _has_ to be, or Revelation 18:4 makes no sense: "I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues;"" [NASB]

If there were no believers in Mystery Babylon, then there would be no cause to call the people of God out of her, for they would not be there in the first place.

----------


## pcosmar

> There _has_ to be, or Revelation 18:4 makes no sense: "I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues;"" [NASB]
> 
> If there were no believers in Mystery Babylon, then there would be no cause to call the people of God out of her, for they would not be there in the first place.


Perhaps that is why I could get no answer. 
 But does he know that answer?

----------


## Deborah K

> Anyone want to take a poke at it.?. I have heard several attacks on folks..
> Are there believers there?


I tend to think the false church is the government.  The goal is global governance and secularism so that the people look to and love the government.  As far as I am concerned, anyone who believes in the Lord our God and Creator, stands a chance when he returns again.  All this other nonsense, and backbiting about this verse and that....this doctrine and that....is just foolishness imo. Foolishness that I, myself partake in.

----------


## otherone

> is just foolishness imo. Foolishness that I, myself partake in.


It's easy to allow our passions to lead us astray.  It's a human thing.

----------


## Deborah K

> <~Tired of seeing this and it is getting to the point of ridiculousness.


I'm ripping this off.

----------


## Deborah K

> It's easy to allow our passions to lead us astray.  It's a human thing.


Yes.  Well, I'm a very passionate person.  I don't deny it.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes.  Well, I'm a very passionate person.  I don't deny it.


Me too Deb and especially before Happy Hour. That's 7PM EST.

----------


## pcosmar

> I tend to think the false church is the government.  The goal is global governance and secularism so that the people look to and love the government.  As far as I am concerned, anyone who believes in the Lord our God and Creator, stands a chance when he returns again.  All this other nonsense, and backbiting about this verse and that....this doctrine and that....is just foolishness imo. Foolishness that I, myself partake in.


I believe it is a church,, rather than government.. from the description, she portrayed as a woman (opposite the Bride of Christ) and has seduced nations.



> With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries."


So separate from governments but involved with them.



> “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.


So it is world wide.
There are riddles in the description.. And it may not become clear till a later time.

yet still,, there are believers within it.. And there is a call,, for believers to come out of her.
I believe that will become clear to those with ears to hear,, when the time comes.

----------


## Deborah K

> I believe it is a church,, rather than government.. from the description, she portrayed as a woman (opposite the Bride of Christ) and has seduced nations.
> 
> So separate from governments but involved with them.
> 
> So it is world wide.
> There are riddles in the description.. And it may not become clear till a later time.
> 
> yet still,, there are believers within it.. And there is a call,, for believers to come out of her.
> I believe that will become clear to those with ears to hear,, when the time comes.


Something _within_ the government?

----------


## Deborah K

The United Nations has "seduced nations".

----------


## Deborah K

Pete, do you think there are certain self-proclaimed Christians who aren't really Christians?  Do you think they are the ones that are referred to when you state "there is a call for believers to come out of her"?  Are you concerned that its the Roman Catholic Church that St. John is referring to?

----------


## moostraks

> I'm ripping this off.


 By all means, please do...

----------


## pcosmar

> The United Nations has "seduced nations".


Revelation 17.

Read it for yourself. It is both descriptive and a Riddle.
Time will tell.




> The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.

----------


## otherone

> Revelation 17.
> 
> Read it for yourself. It is both descriptive and a Riddle.

----------


## pcosmar

> Pete, do you think there are certain self-proclaimed Christians who aren't really Christians?  Do you think they are the ones that are referred to when you state "there is a call for believers to come out of her"?  Are you concerned that its the Roman Catholic Church that St. John is referring to?


The self proclaimed would not be the ones that are being warned.




> "Come out of her, *my people,* so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues; for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.…


And though I could be wrong,, yes.. I do suspect it is the Roman church,, but it will likely draw most other churches into  or under it's banner.

As I said time will tell.

----------


## Deborah K

> The self proclaimed would not be the ones that are being warned.
> 
> 
> 
> And though I could be wrong,, yes.. I do suspect it is the Roman church,, but it will likely draw most other churches into  or under it's banner.
> 
> As I said time will tell.


uhhhhh........ohhhhhhh.........reported.

----------


## Deborah K

> Me too Deb and especially before Happy Hour. That's 7PM EST.


Yeah, I know how passionate you are!!  You and your biker buddies with their nice butts!!!  (Try saying THAT 5 times after a few drinks.) Biker buddies with their nice butts, biker buddies with their nice butts.....

----------


## Dr.3D

> uhhhhh........ohhhhhhh.........reported.


Yeah, that's a taboo subject.   Somebody might become offended.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yeah, I know how passionate you are!!  You and your biker buddies with their nice butts!!!  (Try saying THAT 5 times after a few drinks.) Biker buddies with their nice butts, biker buddies with their nice butts.....


Ever try counting up to 15 while saying, "Smart Fellers" between numbers?  Do it as fast as you can.

----------


## Deborah K

> Ever try counting up to 15 while saying, "Smart Fellers" between numbers?  Do it as fast as you can.


I don't want my mind to explode. It wouldn't take much right now....I'm very vulnerable....I think I might cry....waaah!

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah, that's a taboo subject.   Somebody might become offended.


I was asked a direct question. I have my disagreements with the church but not so much with the people.
I know good Christian folks there.

----------


## Terry1

> Yeah, I know how passionate you are!!  You and your biker buddies with their nice butts!!!  (Try saying THAT 5 times after a few drinks.) Biker buddies with their nice butts, biker buddies with their nice butts.....


I did, but it ended up sounding like hiker wuddies with nuts, hiker wuddies with nuts--as in granola---get your mind out of the gutter Deb.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I was asked a direct question. I have my disagreements with the church but not so much with the people.
> I know good Christian folks there.


So do I, but it's still a pretty personal thing.

----------


## pcosmar

> So do I, but it's still a pretty personal thing.


I did not write the Book.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I did not write the Book.


Well, better put on your asbestos gloves if you plan on reading from that part of it.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, better put on your asbestos gloves if you plan on reading from that part of it.


There is quite a lot in that last chapter that gets a bit hot. and hard to handle.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

The Impetus of Existence, Is. Ahyeh asher ahyeh. Being, that Is.
Existence itself around us hangs on the maintenance of God's will.
The very Now changes moment by hidden moment, on His Word.

The Hand that moves creation, and also resides in the hearts of men, is itself Christ Jesus (Emmanuel) who walked among us and still moves actively in us today. The Potter is the Creator, and the creation in His hands of the realm in which we subsist, is no more rightly questioned by you than it is by me.  God's will Is.  Always.  What becomes of _that,_ then is the work of His hands.

Who understands the hidden things of the eternal realm?  The nature of godliness, and the gift of communion?  Who knows the character of the Creator's Hand?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

It is visible whom the Creator dwells in communion with, they bear the character of their Creator's hands: Jesus Christ.

----------


## Deborah K

> I did, but it ended up sounding like hiker wuddies with nuts, hiker wuddies with nuts--as in granola---get your mind out of the gutter Deb.


LMAO.  I can't.  What is wrong with me????  I'm going straight to hell, I just know it.  Sola?  Nang?  You're right about me.

----------


## Dr.3D

> LMAO.  I can't.  What is wrong with me????  I'm going straight to hell, I just know it.  Sola?  Nang?  You're right about me.


You're probably better off than I am, I didn't even know I was running for election.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There is this undercurrent in your thinking (I see it all the time on the internet) that atheism has a default position of anti-statism.  Please do not delude yourself.  The VaAST MAJORITY of the secularists in this world are statists.  Secondly,  atheistic worldviews cannot non arbitrarily defend moral positions...and liberty is a moral position.


I think the reasoning goes something like this:

1. Atheism condemns the worship of "God" in any form.

2. Statism makes government officials into gods.

3. Therefore, statists are not atheists.

The second premise is correct.  But, I think the first one is faulty, because its impossible.  Its faulty for the same reason that the statement "anarcho-capitalists don't want any laws" is faulty.  There is nobody who doesn't believe in any laws at all, rather, anarchists challenge the paradigm in which law is made.  Similarly, atheists radically challenge common notions of "God" but that does not mean atheists do not worship.  God created human beings to worship, per Romans 1, and human beings cannot possibly avoid worshipping something.  If you aren't worshipping God, you are worshipping some idol whether it be yourself, the State, etc.  Its impossible to truly worship nothing.  

Thus, while statism is indeed religious, and thus incompatible with "atheism", it doesn't matter, because everyone, even atheists, are religious.  This fictional atheist that doesn't worship anything at all does not exist.

(And yes, I understand that there are atheists who reject the State, but they inevitably worship something else.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> LMAO.  I can't.  What is wrong with me????  I'm going straight to hell, I just know it.  Sola?  Nang?  You're right about me.


Nobody here is saying you're going to Hell, Deb.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I tend to think the false church is the government.  The goal is global governance and secularism so that the people look to and love the government.  As far as I am concerned, anyone who believes in the Lord our God and Creator, stands a chance when he returns again.  All this other nonsense, and backbiting about this verse and that....this doctrine and that....is just foolishness imo. Foolishness that I, myself partake in.


I don't think the false church being the RCC is antithetical to it having something to do with the government.  The RCC is certainly a statist organization, despite a few liberty minded people into it.

I think there's a lot of wickedness in most of modern day American Christianity, we're going to be shocked at the end... and we're going to find out that a lot of people really worshipped America rather than God.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> LMAO.  I can't.  What is wrong with me????  I'm going straight to hell, I just know it.  Sola?  Nang?  You're right about me.


LOL - God made us as sexual creatures. I believe it is the legal and cultural _repression_ of our nature that has helped to break our society. We would be a lot healthier _in God_  I think if we weren't so oppressed by the armed religious. That's not in the interest of sexual license, but it's like the victorian era speech, you can hardly talk about it excepting also burlesque and the clappers on a very public stage, and then the goal apparently is to be as lurid as possible.

The legislative Christian Right has led the whole nation astray by trying to remove the natural sexuality of man from the dominion of God, who created them male and female, and handling it themselves.  That's why this country has turned into such a perverted mess.  The very  lobby that claims to speak for God, took morality and put it into the hands of corrupt men.  Our nation has become just as corrupt as the politicians whom we elect (is this really a surprise?), and that is because we have given those politicians _charge_ over the moralities of a nation *rather than God who is just and right*.

However pure the motives of the Christian Right are, they are more often than not doing the devils work in American politics, pushing for the legislation of things that can only, ever, be done rightly by God.

They cannot see that they are removing the authority from God and handing it over to a corrupt politician lusting after worldly power, and then they wonder why our morality continues to accelerate into decline.  It is a self-perpetuating loop, where the "Christian Right" are actually the ones sowing the immorality and then being shocked at what they reap.  Now they acknowledge that they've done wrong for the last 30 years, but refuse to change their behavior and refuse to give up worldly power.  They do not go into the Kingdom of Heaven, nor do they allow those who are entering to go in.  And then along comes the hellfire and it's always everyone elses fault. 

You cannot legislate morality.  By doing so you will _always_ make the problem worse.  There is no exception to this axiom.  Morality can only be adhered to _by faith._  When you have governments dealing in faith, _the morality of the citizens will reflect the morality of the politicians._  The people are supposed to be _MORE_ moral than the bastards we elect.  That will never happen while we continue to put politicians in charge of morality.  They do not have that authority according to the Kingdom of God, and now is the time to manifest the Kingdom among men.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> LOL - God made us as sexual creatures. I believe it is the legal and cultural _repression_ of our nature that has helped to break our society. We would be a lot healthier _in God_  I think if we weren't so oppressed by the armed religious. That's not in the interest of sexual license, but it's like the victorian era speech, you can hardly talk about it excepting also burlesque and the clappers on a very public stage, and then the goal apparently is to be as lurid as possible.
> 
> The legislative Christian Right has led the whole nation astray by trying to remove the natural sexuality of man from the dominion of God, who created them male and female, and handling it themselves.  That's why this country has turned into such a perverted mess.  The very  lobby that claims to speak for God, took morality and put it into the hands of corrupt men.  Our nation has become just as corrupt as the politicians whom we elect (is this really a surprise?), and that is because we have given those politicians _charge_ over the moralities of a nation *rather than God who is just and right*.
> 
> However pure the motives of the Christian Right are, they are more often than not doing the devils work in American politics, pushing for the legislation of things that can only, ever, be done rightly by God.
> 
> They cannot see that they are removing the authority from God and handing it over to a corrupt politician lusting after worldly power, and then they wonder why our morality continues to accelerate into decline.  It is a self-perpetuating loop, where the "Christian Right" are actually the ones sowing the immorality and then being shocked at what they reap.  Now they acknowledge that they've done wrong for the last 30 years, but refuse to change their behavior and refuse to give up worldly power.  They do not go into the Kingdom of Heaven, nor do they allow those who are entering to go in.  And then along comes the hellfire and it's always everyone elses fault. 
> 
> You cannot legislate morality.  By doing so you will _always_ make the problem worse.  There is no exception to this axiom.  Morality can only be adhered to _by faith._  When you have governments dealing in faith, _the morality of the citizens will reflect the morality of the politicians._  The people are supposed to be _MORE_ moral than the bastards we elect.  That will never happen while we continue to put politicians in charge of morality.  They do not have that authority according to the Kingdom of God, and now is the time to manifest the Kingdom among men.


+rep...except I don't agree that 


> _the morality of the citizens will reflect the morality of the politicians._


  The political class has always and will always operate independently of all us mundanes.  

The secular nature of US politics/political discourse especially robs it of a rational morality.  There is no objective standard of "good" among the political class (with the statistically insignificant exceptions like RP).

----------


## Terry1

> LMAO.  I can't.  What is wrong with me????  I'm going straight to hell, I just know it.  Sola?  Nang?  You're right about me.


We gotta get together for Happy Hour--you'd be a riot.

----------


## Terry1

> We're not talking about Gods covenant with Abraham though--we're discussing the "two laws"--one that refers to the law of dead works and the other that pertains to faith.
> 
> God made covenants with Noah, Abraham and David--these are not the two major covenants.  The two major covenants are the Law of Moses, OT and the Law of faith NT.
> 
> 
> 
> All of the covenants/laws that God made with anyone were "moral laws"--God can't make any other kind. 
> 
> 
> ...


Bumped--waiting for a reply.

----------


## eduardo89

> The RCC is certainly a statist organization, despite a few liberty minded people into it.


No organisation where membership is voluntary is 'statist.'

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No organisation where membership is voluntary is 'statist.'


The Jesuit Marxists in South America have nothing to do with statism, right Eduardo?

----------


## eduardo89

> The Jesuit Marxists in South America have nothing to do with statism, right Eduardo?


Marxist/communism has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. The fact that there are Marxists who act as if they are the Church does not make our Faith 'statist' or communist.

But go ahead, continue to argue with red herrings.

----------


## pcosmar

> The Jesuit Marxists in South America have nothing to do with statism, right Eduardo?


Every Religion has them. Look back through the History of this country..Prohibition was pushed for the most part buy Rigorous folks (mostly protestant) and the Eugenics movement was as well. I would bet,, you would find them at the center of Gun control back in the 1930s though I had not searched that myself.

An lot of social controllers are in the protestant camp.. 
People easily led astray,, and mobilized in religious fervor. 

The Roman Catholics do not have a monopoly on error.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> +rep...except I don't agree that   
> 
> 
> 
> _the morality of the citizens will reflect the morality of the politicians._


Say rather, then, "the morality of the citizens will be reflected in the morality of the politicians" - or even more precisely, "the morality of the citizens will be reflected in the morality of the politicians that those citizens allow to rule over them" ...




> The political class has always and will always operate independently of all us mundanes.


We had best hope not, else the withdrawal of consent to "voluntary servitude" (_à la_ Étienne de La Boétie) would be impotent & ineffective, leaving only violent & bloody revolution as an alternative - an alternative apt to produce aught but more of what it sought to eliminate ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No organisation where membership is voluntary is 'statist.'


Let me rephrase.  The Roman Catholic Church clearly supports statism.

----------


## erowe1

> No organisation where membership is voluntary is 'statist.'


So the Democrat party isn't statist?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Let me rephrase.  The Roman Catholic Church clearly supports statism.


Yes, it does.

----------


## eduardo89

> So the Democrat party isn't statist?


The organization itself is not, it is a private organization with voluntary membership and is sponsored voluntarily. It does, however, advocate statism.

----------


## eduardo89

> Let me rephrase.  The Roman Catholic Church clearly supports statism.


Sure, and so does the Bible since it tells us to respect and obey civil authorities.

That said, neither Catholicism nor the Bible are incompatible with anarcho-capitalism as long as the extreme individualism and objectivism which seem to heavily influence some anarcho-capitalists are rejected.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The organization itself is not, it is a private organization with voluntary membership and is sponsored voluntarily. It does, however, advocate statism.


OK, and that was my point.  




> Sure, and so does the Bible since it tells us to respect and obey civil authorities.


This is not a Biblical quote, but even if it was; the existence of "civil authorities" does not require the existence of a State.




> That said, neither Catholicism nor the Bible are incompatible with anarcho-capitalism as long as the extreme individualism and objectivism which seem to heavily influence some anarcho-capitalists are rejected.


I'm not saying the Catholic Church considers anarcho-capitalists to be heretics, but its social teaching certainly does not support anarcho-capitalism.

----------


## eduardo89

> This is not a Biblical quote, but even if it was; the existence of "civil authorities" does not require the existence of a State.


I agree that civil authorities can exist apart from the state. But if we are subject to civil authorities under a state, then we are to obey them.

Romans 13:1
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

1 Peter 2:13-14
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.




> I'm not saying the Catholic Church considers anarcho-capitalists to be heretics, but its social teaching certainly does not support anarcho-capitalism.


Catholic social teaching can be summarised into seven points:

Life and Dignity of the Human Person



> The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching. In our society, human life is under direct attack from abortion and euthanasia.


Call to Family, Community, and Participation



> The person is not only sacred but also social. How we organize our society -- in economics and politics, in law and policy -- directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community. Marriage and the family are the central social institutions that must be supported and strengthened, not undermined. We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.


Rights and Responsibilities



> The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Therefore, every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities--to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.


Option for the Poor and Vulnerable



> A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.


The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers



> The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in Gods creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.


Solidarity



> We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers and sisters keepers, wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions in a shrinking world. At the core of the virtue of solidarity is the pursuit of justice and peace. Pope Paul VI taught that if you want peace, work for justice. The Gospel calls us to be peacemakers. Our love for all our sisters and brothers demands that we promote peace in a world surrounded by violence and conflict.


Care for God's Creation



> We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of Gods creation.


Which of those is incompatible with anarcho-capitalism?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree that civil authorities can exist apart from the state. But if we are subject to civil authorities under a state, then we are to obey them.
> 
> Romans 13:1
> Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:13-14
> Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.


I more or less agree with the way that erowe1 exegeted these passages, as well as C Jay Engel's comments on the topic.  I don't think that these passages are teaching that obedience to every law (which also isn't really possible at present) is a moral requirement.  That said, this isn't my fundamental issue, rather, support for statims is the fundamental issue.



> Catholic social teaching can be summarised into seven points:
> 
> Life and Dignity of the Human Person
> 
> 
> Call to Family, Community, and Participation
> 
> 
> Rights and Responsibilities
> ...


#5 could be, I'm not sure, depending on how interpreted.  But, I thought it was worse than that.  Thank you for posting.

----------


## eduardo89

> I more or less agree with the way that erowe1 exegeted these passages, as well as C Jay Engel's comments on the topic.  I don't think that these passages are teaching that obedience to every law (which also isn't really possible at present) is a moral requirement.  That said, this isn't my fundamental issue, rather, support for statims is the fundamental issue.


The Church does not teach obedience to every law. It actually teaches the opposite, it teaches that we are not to follow immoral laws.




> #5 could be, I'm not sure, depending on how interpreted.  But, I thought it was worse than that.  Thank you for posting.


What are you against in point #5?




> The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in Gods creation.


We are supposed to glorify God in everything we do, so why should our economic activity be exempt from that?




> If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected--


Do you believe that every worker has rights? Do you think that employers should respect their workers?




> the right to productive work,


Do you think that the state should prohibit you from working?




> to decent and fair wages,


Do you think it is immoral to pay a worker less than the value of his labor?




> to the organization and joining of unions,


Do you believe people should be prohibited from exercising their right to associate freely?




> to private property,


That Catholic Church supports private property rights!!! *Gasp* How communist of them!!




> and to economic initiative.


Should your right to start a business be curtailed?


How is any part of this incompatible with anarcho-capitalism?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree that civil authorities can exist apart from the state. But if we are subject to civil authorities under a state, then we are to obey them.



This is what the Catholic Catechism says:




> Catechism of the Catholic Church
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 2: PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL LIFE 
> 
> 
> AUTHORITY 
> 
> 
> ...




These are wicked statements!  How could you stand behind them?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Eduardo, do you believe the "common good" of "society" requires an organization on the international level? 




> *It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.*


Why are you involved in the freedom movement?

----------


## eduardo89

> This is what the Catholic Catechism says:
> 
> These are wicked statements!  How could you stand behind them?


Because I don't distort them and interpret them the way you do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Church does not teach obedience to every law. It actually teaches the opposite, it teaches that we are not to follow immoral laws.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you against in point #5?
> 
> 
> We are supposed to glorify God in everything we do, so why should our economic activity be exempt from that?
> 
> ...


OK, it ultimately comes down to how you interpret certain points.  For instance, you interpret "right to productive work" in negative terms, namely, that the State (or anyone else) is violating your rights if they prevent you from working.  Based on that interpretation, I agree with you.  But the statement could just as easily be interpreted as meaning that you have a right to a job and that the State should actively ensure that you get one, which I would certainly disagree with.

As for paying someone less than the value of their labor, I'm not so sure that's possible.  Isn't value subjective?  If we make an agreement that you'll work for me for X amount of money per hour, and then I actually pay you that amount, nobody is being treated unfairly.  Now, I understand that government involvement in the marketplace prevents economic law from working as it should, and it is possible to interpret this section solely to mean not to cheat people who work for you (Which I would certainly agree with.)  But its not like there's some amount of money that a given worker is "worth" and to pay them less is immoral.  That's subjective and ultimately based on what contracts were agreed upon previously.

BTW: I never called the  Catholic Church "communist".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because I don't distort them and interpret them the way you do.



Do you believe this?




> * It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society. The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is what the Catholic Catechism says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are wicked statements!  How could you stand behind them?


Yeah, those quotes are awful, and way worse than the ones eduardo posted.  Clement's quote is awful as well, but it seems similar to how many modern Christians pray for the governing authorities.  The Bible says to pray for them THAT WE MIGHT LEAD QUIET LIVES!  We're supposed to pray that they'll leave us alone!  Clement, like so many modern statists, prays for the SUCCESS of the rulers and the EXALTATION of their sovereignty.  I don't see how the awfulness of that quote isn't plain.

And then, of course, the parts that Sola bolded.  How else are we supposed to interpret those statements?  The ones that eduardo posted were vague enough that they could be taken different ways, but the catechism clearly supports statism.

----------


## eduardo89

> Do you believe this?


Yes, I do.

I believe that the state's job is to promote the common good. I believe the state should protect life, it should protect property rights, it should make sure contracts are upheld, it should punish rapists, murdered, and thieves. All those things promote the common good. 

With regards to organisation of society on the international level, yes I agree with that point as well. I believe that nations should have friendly and diplomatic relations with one another to ensure that goods and capital can freely flow between them. I believe that international organisations such as the Red Cross and Caritas Internationalis should exist and operate across the globe helping the poor, the sick, and victims of disaster.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, I do.
> 
> I believe that the state's job is to promote the common good. I believe the state should protect life, it should protect property rights, it should make sure contracts are upheld, it should punish rapists, murdered, and thieves. All those things promote the common good.


So you think the thieves and murderers in government should have a monopoly on punishing other rapists and murderers.   Why?





> With regards to organisation of society on the international level, yes I agree with that point as well. I believe that nations should have friendly and diplomatic relations with one another to ensure that goods and capital can freely flow between them. I believe that international organisations such as the Red Cross and Caritas Internationalis should exist and operate across the globe helping the poor, the sick, and victims of disaster.


So to you, international organizations like the UN are good things?

----------


## Terry1

> This is what the Catholic Catechism says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are wicked statements!  How could you stand behind them?


How can you stand behind this?

Calvin's Reign of Terror (The Protestant Pope)

After some negotiation, Ami Perrin, commissioner for Geneva, persuaded Calvin to return. He did so, though unwillingly, on September 13, 1541. His entry was modest. Geneva was a church-city-state of 15,000 people, and the church constitution now recognized "pastors, doctors, elders and deacons," but the supreme power was given to the magistrate, John Calvin. In November 1552, the Council declared Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin's pulpit calling him a hypocrite. 

Gruet's book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch. Gruet's death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec -- moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary. Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed. John Calvin had secured his grip on Geneva by defeating the very man who had invited him there, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva.

----------


## eduardo89

> So you think the thieves and murderers in government should have a monopoly on punishing other rapists and murderers.   Why?


No, I think the thieves and murders in government should be punished just like all other thieves and murderers. 




> So to you, international organizations like the UN are good things?


Where did I say that? Why are you putting words in my mouth?

----------


## acptulsa

> So the Democrat party isn't statist?


You think there aren't plenty of people, especially in the post-Dubya era, who consider 'join or we call you a Republican' a very effective form of coersion?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, I think the thieves and murders in government should be punished just like all other thieves and murderers. 
> 
> 
> Where did I say that? Why are you putting words in my mouth?


So according to Rome, it is not wrong for a person in government to confiscate wealth through taxation?   Why not?

Is not the UN an "organization at the International level"?  Why would Rome be against it since it's own catechism says that something like that is "required"?

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes, I do.
> 
> I believe that the state's job is to promote the common good. I believe the state should protect life, it should protect property rights, it should make sure contracts are upheld, it should punish rapists, murdered, and thieves. All those things promote the common good.


1 Samuel 8 



> So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah.  They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, *such as all the other nations have.”*





> Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”





> But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. * Then we will be like all the other nations,* with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”


A King was never a good idea.

----------


## eduardo89

> So according to Rome, it is not wrong for a person in government to confiscate wealth through taxation?   Why not?


I don't consider taxation to fund limited government which sticks to the principles of protecting life, liberty, and property to be theft. Anything above that is theft.




> Is not the UN an "organization at the International level"?  Why would Rome be against it since it's own catechism says that something like that is "required"?


It's absolutely pointless to try and debate things with you. The Catechism never says that the United Nations is required, it never says anything like the UN is required. You like to take things and twist them so hard to suit your argument.

----------


## acptulsa

I'm sick of this thread.

When the big debate was the Ukraine, the ad selecting computer of the internet, in its infinite peabrainedness, was showing us pics of lovely Asian women claiming to be looking for homes.  It was nice.

Now we get ads for ceramic tile.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't consider taxation to fund limited government which sticks to the principles of protecting life, liberty, and property to be theft. Anything above that is theft.
> 
> 
> It's absolutely pointless to try and debate things with you. The Catechism never says that the United Nations is required, it never says anything like the UN is required. You like to take things and twist them so hard to suit your argument.


The leader of your church,  the man you think is the Vicar of Christ on earth said (AT A SPEECH TO THE UN) that there must be a greater redistribution of wealth:




> VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope Francis called Friday for governments to redistribute wealth to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the "economy of exclusion" that is taking hold today.
> 
> Francis made the appeal during a speech to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the heads of major U.N. agencies who are meeting in Rome this week.
> 
> Latin America's first pope has frequently lashed out at the injustices of capitalism and the global economic system that excludes so much of humanity.
> 
> On Friday, Francis called for the United Nations to promote a "worldwide ethical mobilization" of solidarity with the poor in a new spirit of generosity.
> 
> He said a more equal form of economic progress can be had through "the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society."
> ...



This all happened at a speech to the UN.  It seems like your church is very comfortable with the UN slave masters promoting more world slavery and tyranny.

----------


## eduardo89

> The leader of your church,  the man you think is the Vicar of Christ on earth said (AT A SPEECH TO THE UN) that there must be a greater redistribution of wealth:
> 
> This all happened at a speech to the UN.  It seems like your church is very comfortable with the UN slave masters promoting more world slavery and tyranny.


And that is his personal opinion. Catholics are free to disagree with the personal opinions of the Pope. 

I do, however, agree with him that there should be a more equitable distribution of wealth. I'm not exactly sure what the Holy Father's suggestion for achieving this is, but I believe it comes through economic development and opportunity as well as moral education.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And that is his personal opinion. Catholics are free to disagree with the personal opinions of the Pope. 
> 
> I do, however, agree with him that there should be a more equitable distribution of wealth. I'm not exactly sure what the Holy Father's suggestion for achieving this is, but I believe it comes through economic development and opportunity as well as moral education.


Oh, that must have been when he was speaking fallibly right?

----------


## acptulsa

> Oh, that must have been when he was speaking fallibly right?


Careful.  That's the exact same tradition you use to give Peter's sales pitches the same weight as God speaking through Jesus.

----------


## eduardo89

> Oh, that must have been when he was speaking fallibly right?


I should have known you'd grab red herring out of the Sola Fide Debating Toolbox.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Careful.  That's the exact same tradition you use to give Peter's sales pitches the same weight as God speaking through Jesus.


What on earth are you talking about?  Is it possible for you to speak normally so that we can have a discussion?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I should have known you'd grab red herring out of the Sola Fide Debating Toolbox.


Well, he wasn't speaking infallibly, correct?  So he must have been fallible there?

----------


## TER

> How can you stand behind this?
> 
> Calvin's Reign of Terror (The Protestant Pope)
> 
> After some negotiation, Ami Perrin, commissioner for Geneva, persuaded Calvin to return. He did so, though unwillingly, on September 13, 1541. His entry was modest. Geneva was a church-city-state of 15,000 people, and the church constitution now recognized "pastors, doctors, elders and deacons," but the supreme power was given to the magistrate, John Calvin. In November 1552, the Council declared Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin's pulpit calling him a hypocrite. 
> 
> Gruet's book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch. Gruet's death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec -- moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary. Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed. John Calvin had secured his grip on Geneva by defeating the very man who had invited him there, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva.


  I honestly know little about the history of John Calvin, but this don't sound too good...

----------


## acptulsa

> What on earth are you talking about?  Is it possible for you to speak normally so that we can have a discussion?


If by 'speaking normally' we mean keeping my conversation dumbed down enough to avoid threatening your dogma, no.

There is no way I'll be letting you control the conversation by rejecting half my vocabulary and redefining the other half.  Can't do it.

----------


## Terry1

> I honestly know little about the history of John Calvin, but this don't sound too good...


The man was an evil tyrant who took joy in murdering and torturing those who didn't buy into his theology.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How can you stand behind this?
> 
> Calvin's Reign of Terror (The Protestant Pope)
> 
> After some negotiation, Ami Perrin, commissioner for Geneva, persuaded Calvin to return. He did so, though unwillingly, on September 13, 1541. His entry was modest. Geneva was a church-city-state of 15,000 people, and the church constitution now recognized "pastors, doctors, elders and deacons," but the supreme power was given to the magistrate, John Calvin. In November 1552, the Council declared Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to be a "holy doctrine which no man might speak against." Thus the State issued dogmatic decrees, the force of which had been anticipated earlier, as when Jacques Gruet, a known opponent of Calvin, was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547, for placing a letter in Calvin's pulpit calling him a hypocrite. 
> 
> Gruet's book was later found and burned along with his house while his wife was thrown out into the street to watch. Gruet's death was more highly criticized by far than the banishment of Castellio or the penalties inflicted on Bolsec -- moderate men opposed to extreme views in discipline and doctrine, who fell under suspicion as reactionary. Calvin did not shrink from his self-appointed task. Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin's theocracy triumphed. John Calvin had secured his grip on Geneva by defeating the very man who had invited him there, Ami Perrin, commissioner of Geneva.


I DON'T STAND BEHIND THAT.  I NEVER HAVE.  WHY DO YOU KEEP CALLING ME A CALVINIST WHEN I AM NOT ONE?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The man was an evil tyrant who took joy in murdering and torturing those who didn't buy into his theology.


First of all, that is an ignorant statement.  You know literally nothing about Calvin in Geneva.  I know much more than you do, so I have a better reason to disagree with him like I do.

----------


## eduardo89

> I DON'T STAND BEHIND THAT.  I NEVER HAVE.  WHY DO YOU KEEP CALLING ME A CALVINIST WHEN I AM NOT ONE?


hmmm....




> This is why we old fashioned Calvinists have such a problem with...

----------


## eduardo89

> I know much more than you do


I'm tempted to make this my signature.

----------


## Terry1

Here's more on Calvin:  Who does this sound like that we know?



John Calvin was called "the Protestant Pope" and the "Dictator of Geneva" and with good reason. In his sovereignty John Calvin irresistibly 
imposed and compelled his brand of "righteousness" on all the citizens of Geneva. John Calvin was a harsh man who was the first Protestant in 
Europe to imposea uniform subordination upon an entire populace With systematic thoroughness, John Calvin set to work for 
realization of his plan to convert Geneva into the first Kingdom of God on earth The whole of his life was devoted to the service of 
this one idea(2).

Philip Schaff tells of a Lutheran minister who visited Geneva, When I was in Geneva I observed something great which I shall remember and 
desire as long as I live[which was] the weekly investigations into the conduct, and even the smallest transgression, of the citizens.(10)

Laurence Vance writes, "Calvin was involved in every conceivable aspect of city life... He was consulted not only on all important state 
affairs, but on the supervision of the markets..."(3).

If someone dared to criticize John Calvin theologically, as Sebastian Castellio did in 1544, Calvin would lodge a complaint with the Geneva civil 
authorities,(4) again, demonstrating the intimate connection between civil and religious life in Geneva.

One demonstration of John Calvin's micro-management of day-to-day life in Geneva is in 1546 John Calvin drew up a list of names for children 
inappropriate for baptism mandating that unless a name appeared in the Bible it was unsuitable.(4)

Historian Will Durant wrote:

"To regulate lay conduct a system of domiciliary visits was established...and questioned the occupants on all phases of their lives... 
The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and 
lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height...

Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents... To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy 
was a crime... Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death... a child was
beheaded for striking his parents...(5)

From the official records of the City Council Stephan Zweig noted:

"There is hardly a day, in the records of the settings of the Town Council, in which we do not find the remark: 'Better consult 
Master Calvin about this.'"(6)

John Calvin was given a "consultant's chair" in every meeting of the city authorities and "when he was sick the authorities would come to his 
house for sessions."(7)

"...the sinister power of this zealot extended far beyond the walls of Geneva. The Swiss federated cities regarded him as their chief 
political member; throughout the western world the Protestants had appointed this "violentissimus Christianus" their commander-
in-chief; kings and princes vied with one another in wooing the favour of a militant ecclesiastic who had established in Europe a 
Church organization second in power only to that ruled by the Roman pontiff. Nothing could happen in the political world without 
his knowledge; very little could happen there in defiance of his will. It had become as dangerous to offend the preacher of St.-
Pierre as to offend emperor or pope..."(8)

The Geneva Council declared in November of 1552 that Calvin's Institutes were a holy doctrine which no man might speak against.(9)  
Clearly there was no separation between civil and religious affairs in Geneva. In addition, criticism of John Calvin's Institutes was considered 
heresy for which the sentence was death by burning at the stake. A civil crime with a religious punishment.

To claim a difference between civil and theological governance in Geneva is just a device of John Calvin's defenders to hide his dirty laundry.

John Calvin never showed any evidence of sanctification, he showed no love and mercy to those he didn't like, he never repented of having other 
Christians tortured and killed. John Calvin does not remotely emulate Jesus, the Apostles or the first century Christians. Changed or unchanged?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> hmmm....


Eduardo, I've already said that I referred to myself as that in that particular discussion because it helped people understand the context of what we were talking about.  I disagree with Calvin on a NUMBER of key doctrinal issues, and a number of his social positions.  In fact, I am in the minority in the Reformed world (if you want to call it that) because I am against most of the Calvinists today and in history.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Here's more on Calvin:  Who does this sound like that we know?
> 
> 
> 
> John Calvin was called "the Protestant Pope" and the "Dictator of Geneva" and with good reason....
> 
> *Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents...*




So Calvin carried over the same tyranny that the Roman Catholic Church and other secular governments practiced for centuries.


What does this have to do with me?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> First of all, that is an ignorant statement.  You know literally nothing about Calvin in Geneva.  I know much more than you do, so I have a better reason to disagree with him like I do.


Ignoring the fact that obviously most Calvinists don't agree with Calvin, are the accusations against Calvin himself even true?  Is Laurence Vance off here?



> Here's more on Calvin:  Who does this sound like that we know?
> 
> 
> 
> John Calvin was called "the Protestant Pope" and the "Dictator of Geneva" and with good reason. In his sovereignty John Calvin irresistibly 
> imposed and compelled his brand of "righteousness" on all the citizens of Geneva. John Calvin was a harsh man who was the first Protestant in 
> Europe “to impose…a uniform subordination upon an entire populace… With systematic thoroughness, John Calvin set to work for 
> realization of his plan to convert Geneva into the first Kingdom of God on earth… The whole of his life was devoted to the service of 
> this one idea”(2).
> ...


OK, so what?  Most American Arminians are raving neocons, does this circumstantial fact disprove Arminianism?  Give me a break.

----------


## eduardo89

> OK, so what?  Most American Arminians are raving neocons, does this circumstantial fact disprove Arminianism?  Give me a break.


Doubtful. Neoconservatives are generally secular or not particularly attached to their faith at all.

----------


## pcosmar

> I honestly know little about the history of John Calvin, but this don't sound too good...


There has been much evil done in the name of god,, and by many under the banner of christ.

By all the churches. By the reformers and by charlatans.

No one church has a monopoly on truth nor evils. There have been many wars fought,, that God did not call for.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Doubtful. Neoconservatives are generally secular or not particularly attached to their faith at all.


I'm not sure exactly where the line for "neoconservative" is.  I'm broadly throwing all Bush/McCain supporters into that general group, even if that might not be fair.  Most Christians I know with Arminian theology lean in that type of direction.  I know some Reformed people who do as well, but I also know some who are more non-interventionist and/or indifferent to politics.  There's a huge tie in between dispensationalism's views on Israel and foreign  policy, and most dispensationalists are Arminians (not all.)  THat said, there are also some non-Arminians who are not dispensationalists who support aggressive foreign policy for other reasons.  Regardless,  my point is that the circumstantial facts about "most people" who believe a certain theology doesn't discredit the theology.

----------


## eduardo89

> I'm not sure exactly where the line for "neoconservative" is.  I'm broadly throwing all Bush/McCain supporters into that general group, even if that might not be fair.  Most Christians I know with Arminian theology lean in that type of direction.  I know some Reformed people who do as well, but I also know some who are more non-interventionist and/or indifferent to politics.  There's a huge tie in between dispensationalism's views on Israel and foreign  policy, and most dispensationalists are Arminians (not all.)  THat said, there are also some non-Arminians who are not dispensationalists who support aggressive foreign policy for other reasons.  Regardless,  my point is that the circumstantial facts about "most people" who believe a certain theology doesn't discredit the theology.


You probably shouldn't be so collectivist in your assertions of who is a neoconservative.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> A King was never a good idea.


No, but neither was Congress/Parliament or a president.  Kings are historically the lesser evil, if one had to choose.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So Calvin carried over the same tyranny that the Roman Catholic Church and other secular governments practiced for centuries.
> 
> What does this have to do with me?


I believe Terry is commenting on how you appear to reflect the same behavior and attitudes as Calvin, minus the dominion over Geneva. The implication being that in the event you did have dominion over Geneva, then your behavior would appear much the same as Calvin's. To be honest, I would find it difficult right now to disagree. Nevertheless I would not presume to press a personal judgement on that, rather it would do more to color my understanding of the kinds of people who are drawn to a certain kind of error, and speculation on whether a certain kind of error actually leads _itself_ to certain kinds of behavior and attitudes. 

Are narcissistic personalities led to Calvin, or does Calvin's discovery turn people into narcissists? The first is far preferred over the second.  The first can be dealt with and incorporated, but the second is evidence of a much deeper corruption and the entire doctrine would have to be discarded.

Knowing my friend Theo from well before you lot arrived (who is also way out of proportion in some ways) I am still leaning in favor of the first one.  Which is the one that can be dealt with.   So that's good news, despite the painful language to get there.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't consider taxation to fund limited government which sticks to the principles of protecting life, liberty, and property to be theft. Anything above that is theft.


Is direct taxation theft to thee?  It is in classical American thought.

----------


## Dr.3D

> No, but neither was Congress/Parliament or a president.  Kings are historically the lesser evil, if one had to choose.


Given the choice, I would rather we went back to having judges and let God be our king.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, but neither was Congress/Parliament or a president.  Kings are historically the lesser evil, if one had to choose.


Yes,, but our President was never supposed to have been a ruler. He was supposed to be a representative of the people.. The same for Congress.

The people are suppose to rule. 

This has become perverted. And should have been set right long ago.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes,, but our President was never supposed to have been a ruler. He was supposed to be a representative of the people.. The same for Congress.


Wrong. The American presidency was never supposed to be a representative of the people, but rather of the states. That is why the Founder devised the Electoral College, where the states elect the President and rejected popular election of the President.

----------


## eduardo89

> Is direct taxation theft to thee?  It is in classical American thought.


There is more credibility to the argument that a direct tax is theft than an indirect tax. I personally prefer indirect taxes such as excise taxes, tariffs, and consumption taxes (sales or value added taxes).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes,, but our President was never supposed to have been a ruler. He was supposed to be a representative of the people.. The same for Congress.
> 
> The people are suppose to rule. 
> 
> This has become perverted. And should have been set right long ago.


The founders, if you believe The Federalist, did not believe  "The People" should rule.  They believed that the masses are too dangerous left to themselves, and that they should go through congress or local reps WRT civil affairs.  (that's one thing I agree with them on.  The masses are extremely dangerous-and the more people among them, the more dangerous they become.  the ballot box is a modern day lynching and/or grand theft.)

----------


## Terry1

> Ignoring the fact that obviously most Calvinists don't agree with Calvin, are the accusations against Calvin himself even true?  Is Laurence Vance off here?
> 
> 
> OK, so what?  Most American Arminians are raving neocons, does this circumstantial fact disprove Arminianism?  Give me a break.


Who would follow any part of any doctrine this guy wrote?  That's my question.  Sola's criticizing Catholic doctrine--what about what you all are subscribing to and the guy who wrote it?  Don't tell me now that what you two believe isn't "Calvinism"--it's too late for that to fly.

Martin Luther invented "Sola Scripture"--he was even worse that John Calvin when it came to being a murdering despot.  Basically--all of the Protestant reformers were frauds and tyrants.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Who would follow any part of any doctrine this guy wrote?  That's my question.  Sola's criticizing Catholic doctrine--what about what you all are subscribing to and the guy who wrote it?  Don't tell me now that what you two believe isn't "Calvinism"--it's too late for that to fly.
> 
> Martin Luther invented "Sola Scripture"--he was even worse that John Calvin when it came to being a murdering despot.  Basically--all of the Protestant reformers were frauds and tyrants.


This^^  


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Terry1 again.

----------


## pcosmar

> Wrong. The American presidency was never supposed to be a representative of the people, but rather of the states. That is why the Founder devised the Electoral College, where the states elect the President and rejected popular election of the President.


But still a representative.  Not a ruler.

The people were to rule themselves,, and the government to be limited. The Government was never meant to rule over the people.

It has long ago exceeded it's bounds and usurped it's authority.

----------


## Terry1

Martin Luther was not a great reformer like the history books teach, but he was a fraud! 

Here are some quotes from Luther which shows that he taught the heresy of Once Saved Always Saved: 

"Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not a dwelling place of righteousness" 

"No sin will separate us from the lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." 

"Whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to." 

"The imputation of righteousness we need very much, because we are far from perfect. As long as we have this body, sin will dwell in our flesh. Then, too, we sometimes drive away the holy spirit; we fall into sin, like Peter, David, and other holy men. Nevertheless we may always take recourse to this fact, that our sins are covered, and that God will not lay them to our charge. Sin is not held against us for Christ's sake." 

"your sin cannot cast you into hell" 

"No sin can harm me" 


LUTHER WAS AN ANTI-SEMITE

Here are some quite shocking quotes from Luther which show that he was a rabid anti-Semite: 

"The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves" 

"We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them." 

"The blind Jews are truly stupid fools"

"Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people."

"eject them forever from this country"

"they are nothing but thieves and robbers"

"What then shall we do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?"

"Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews"

"They are the real liars and bloodhounds"

"We are at fault for not slaying them."

"I shall give you my sincere advice: first to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them." 

"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed." 

"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews." 

"Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them" 

"If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs" 

"If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the river Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words `I baptize thee in the name of Abraham'."


Martin Luther was not a Christian man, but, instead, he was a brutal man who persecuted the Jews unmercifully. 

The word of God calls Martin Luther a liar:

1John 4:20- If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?


LUTHER CONDONED THE DEATHS OF A 100,000 PEASANTS 

The peasants of Germany revolted in 1525 because of their miserable living conditions and were slaughtered at the behest of Martin Luther! 


Here is a quote from Luther that will send chills up your spine: 

"They should be knocked to pieces, strangled and stabbed, secretly and openly, by everybody who can do it, just as one must kill a mad dog!" 


Are these the words of a Christian and a great reformer? I think not! Luther was an evil man who urged the slaughter of the poor who had revolted. He told people to knock the peasants to pieces and strangle and stab them. 100,000 German peasants were horribly slaughtered in the revolt! 



JOHN CALVIN WAS A MURDERER

Not only was the founder of Calvinism, John Calvin, a great deceiver, but he was also a murderer! 


Here are John Calvin's own words about Michael Servetus: 

"If he(Servetus) comes(to Geneva), I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight." 

"I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty." 

In Geneva, on October 27, 1553, Michael Servetus was tied to a stake and was burned slowly to death: 

www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/11716.html


Here is what John Calvin had to say about Michael Servetus after he was burned to death: 

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that(they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face." 

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt." 


John Calvin was not a Christian, my friends, but he was an egotistical tyrant and a cold-blooded killer! 

How anyone can follow the warped teachings of this deranged monster from the past is beyond belief. 

A man named Sebastian Castellio wrote against what Calvin did to Servetus and he made this tremendous statement:

"To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine. It is to kill a man!"

Castellio paid a great price for standing up to Calvin the tyrant. He was hounded and persecuted by John Calvin until his death.

Murderers like John Calvin and Martin Luther are not Christians:

1 John 3:15- ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 

For more on Calvin see Calvinism and The Servetus Murder 

In five years, 1542-46, Geneva, with 16,000 inhabitants, had fifty-seven executions and seventy-six banishments. All these sentences were sanctioned by John Calvin. 

Let's take a look at the two so-called great reformers of the protestant reformation: 

1. Martin Luther was a false teacher, a racist, a persecutor and a murderer! 

2. John Calvin was a false teacher, a deranged tyrant, a persecutor and a murderer! 


The Protestant Reformation was a farce!


THE PROTESTANT `REFORMERS' PERSECUTED, TORTURED AND SLAUGHTERED THE ANABAPTISTS

Link to true accounts of how the Anabaptists were tortured and murdered at the hands of the Protestants:

"The Martyrs Mirror"

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't approve of any of those actions by Luther or Calvin.  What's your point?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Who would follow any part of any doctrine this guy wrote?  That's my question.  Sola's criticizing Catholic doctrine--what about what you all are subscribing to and the guy who wrote it?  Don't tell me now that what you two believe isn't "Calvinism"--it's too late for that to fly.
> 
> Martin Luther invented "Sola Scripture"--he was even worse that John Calvin when it came to being a murdering despot.  Basically--all of the Protestant reformers were frauds and tyrants.


I'm with  Sola.  The term generally used to describe my doctrine is commonly called "Calvinism", so I go with it for the sake of discussion.  I'm not defending everything those guys did.  I agree with Luther on Sola Scriptura and with Calvin on the 5 points.  I believe those doctrines to be Biblical.  I don't agree with the killing of Servetus, Jews, or peasants.  Those quotes are serious issues for Luther or Calvin, and they'll have to face God for those quotes, but they aren't my issues.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Given the choice, I would rather we went back to having judges and let God be our king.


I think that is actually the point of the millennial reign.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Martin Luther was not a great reformer like the history books teach, but he was a fraud! 
> 
> Here are some quotes from Luther which shows that he taught the heresy of Once Saved Always Saved: 
> 
> "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not a dwelling place of righteousness" 
> 
> "No sin will separate us from the lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." 
> 
> "Whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to." 
> ...





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Terry1 again.

----------


## Brett85

I never knew that about Luther.  He might've been even worse than Calvin.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I never knew that about Luther.  He might've been even worse than Calvin.


I'm not defending these actions.  I'm not even saying those guys were truly saved (I neither know nor care.)  But you do have to realize that these types of views were more socially accepted back then.  Much like many people, probably some truly saved, were deceived into believing in slavery in the 1850's.  Or, for that matter, people who support "the draft" now.  Its no joke though, nor is it something to be taken lightly.  But its easy to look back 500 years and be like "look at those awful people" while being blinded to the fact that modern Christians believe and say and do things that will likely be looked back on as horrible in 500 years.

----------


## TER

> I never knew that about Luther.  He might've been even worse than Calvin.


Yeah, I am finding it hard to believe only because I never heard about it before (granted, I haven't studied much about Martin Luther).  But wow, not a good thing at all.  This harkens back to what Christ said about knowing the tree from it's fruits.  

Martin Luther introduced some very novel concepts which he claimed were the apostolic teachings which were lost in time (even though the historical records disprove him completely) and to learn that his actual life was filled with such malice and hatred certainly makes him lose alot of credibility.  But this is what I was talking about earlier, that we become the doctrines which we hold sacred.  If we consider ourselves to be some predestined elect whose sins have no eternal consequences on account of our simply believing that Christ died to save the world, then we might live our lives doing things fearlessly and carelessly which go against the commandments of the Lord.  This is why doctrine matters, for our doctrines shape our lives and our relationships with God and others around us.   

Anyway, thank you Terry for the information.  It is important to know the lives of those whom we have made fathers of our faith, because if one wants to know about the Church they are in, they should start by studying who the Church has called to be it's founders and saints.

----------


## Terry1

> Yeah, I am finding it hard to believe only because I never heard about it before (granted, I haven't studied much about Martin Luther).  But wow, not a good thing at all.  This harkens back to what Christ said about knowing the tree from it's fruits.  
> 
> Martin Luther introduced some very novel concepts which he claimed were the apostolic teachings which were lost in time (even though the historical records disprove him completely) and to learn that his actual life was filled with such malice and hatred certainly makes him lose alot of credibility.  But this is what I was talking about earlier, that we become the doctrines which we hold sacred.  If we consider ourselves to be some predestined elect whose sins have no eternal consequences on account of our simply believing that Christ died to save the world, then we might live our lives doing things fearlessly and carelessly which go against the commandments of the Lord.  This is why doctrine matters, for our doctrines shape our lives and our relationships with God and others around us.   
> 
> Anyway, thank you Terry for the information.  It is important to know the lives of those whom we have made fathers of our faith, because if one wants to know about the Church they are in, they should start by studying who the Church has called to be it's founders and saints.


Welcome TER.  I think it's important to know and understand these things about the two most powerful and influential reformers that for the most part--set the stage for what the majority of Protestant churches teach as in Absolute Predestination without choice--OSAS--Sola Scripture--sin and murder all the more--TULIP--that there's only 66 books of the Bible--Calvin and Luther were the inventors and architects of most of these and powerful men who managed to gain support of these doctrines that ARE leading so many astray.

----------


## Nang

> Welcome TER.  I think it's important to know and understand these things about the two most powerful and influential reformers that for the most part--set the stage for what the majority of Protestant churches teach as in Absolute Predestination without choice--OSAS--Sola Scripture--sin and murder all the more--TULIP--that there's only 66 books of the Bible--Calvin and Luther were the inventors and architects of most of these and powerful men who managed to gain support of these doctrines that ARE leading so many astray.


These (dubious) postings of the crimes of Luther and Calvin, always seem ridiculous, when they are presented by those who associate with the RCC but never even mention the horrors of their Inquisitions.

By numbers alone, the crimes and horrors performed by the RCC far exceed anything that can be found on Google regarding the Reformers.

For historical and spiritual perspective, I recommend all readers go online and read Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> These (dubious) postings of the crimes of Luther and Calvin, always seem ridiculous, when they are presented by those who associate with the RCC and never even mention the Inquisitions.
> 
> By numbers alone, the crimes and horrors performed by the RCC and Eastern barbarians, far exceed anything that can be found on Google regarding the Reformers.
> 
> For historical and spiritual perspective, I recommend all readers go online and read Foxe's Book of Martyrs.




THANK YOU.  I've decided to make your post very large so that everyone here sees it and reads it.

I am also going to create a thread dealing with horrific murder and torture of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

(My guess is that the thread I will create will be censored while all of the threads created about Calvin and Luther will remain....let's watch and see)

----------


## otherone

So we can ALL agree that ALL denominations have blood on their hands!

HUGZ!

----------


## Deborah K

> THANK YOU.  I've decided to make your post very large so that everyone here sees it and reads it.
> 
> I am also going to create a thread dealing with horrific murder and torture of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.
> 
> *(My guess is that the thread I will create will be censored while all of the threads created about Calvin and Luther will remain....let's watch and see)*


*
*

----------


## moostraks

> So we can ALL agree that ALL denominations have blood on their hands!
> 
> HUGZ!


 No, all do not. There are peace churches and nang and sola would like to ignore Martyrs Mirror which would be my suggestion over Foxe's. As for dubious it is a joke to act as though the Reformers were not killing Quakers as well. The sect was well read and left numerous journals and correspondences to document the situations they suffered as well as the primary source documents I have posted several times to which sola still refuses to acknowledge.

----------


## pcosmar

> So we can ALL agree that ALL denominations have blood on their hands!
> 
> HUGZ!


That has long been my position. There is both truth and error side by side.

worship where you will and in a manner you are comfortable with. Trust in God and in God alone.. 
Test everything that is said by the written Word and by the Spirit of God.

We all see only a part,, and that dimly.. till we get home and know of all our errors.

----------


## moostraks

> THANK YOU.  I've decided to make your post very large so that everyone here sees it and reads it.
> 
> I am also going to create a thread dealing with horrific murder and torture of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.
> 
> (My guess is that the thread I will create will be censored while all of the threads created about Calvin and Luther will remain....let's watch and see)


 If I do the same font increase, will you finally read the deaths caused by your faith's ancestors to silence Quakers? Shall I quote some stories from Martyrs Mirror?

----------


## Nang

> THANK YOU.  I've decided to make your post very large so that everyone here sees it and reads it.
> 
> I am also going to create a thread dealing with horrific murder and torture of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.
> 
> (My guess is that the thread I will create will be censored while all of the threads created about Calvin and Luther will remain....let's watch and see)


Yeah, it is about time to learn some real history . . .

----------


## Nang

> No, all do not. There are peace churches and nang and sola would like to ignore Martyrs Mirror which would be my suggestion over Foxe's. As for dubious it is a joke to act as though the Reformers were not killing Quakers as well. The sect was well read and left numerous journals and correspondences to document the situations they suffered as well as the primary source documents I have posted several times to which sola still refuses to acknowledge.



Moostraks,

Can you confess, before all on this forum, that you have actually read Foxe's Book of Martyrs?

----------


## moostraks

> Moostraks,
> 
> Can you confess, before all on this forum, that you have actually read Foxe's Book of Martyrs?


I am shunned right now. You have made me a non-entity in your sight. Recant and give reason for why I should be given fellowship again, or accept that I may refute your posts but you live in your ivory tower.

And if you think you are making some case in your weird connections of data points, I own a foxe's and Martyrs Mirror. My children use Martyrs mirror with school.

----------


## Nang

> I am shunned right now. You have made me a non-entity in your sight. Recant and give reason for why I should be given fellowship again, or accept that I may refute your posts but you live in your ivory tower.
> 
> And if you think you are making some case in your weird connections of data points, I own a foxe's and Martyrs Mirror. My children use Martyrs mirror with school.


Do you confess, before all reading this forum, that you have actually *read* all of Foxe's Book of Martyrs?

----------


## VIDEODROME

I've been wondering if Atheism is actually compatible with Sola Fide's view.  He basically keeps hammering the idea that we can do nothing about our situation.  Atheists are not trying to do works to be saved.  Even if you include Faith itself as a work.

----------


## moostraks

> *I am shunned right now. You have made me a non-entity in your sight. Recant and give reason for why I should be given fellowship again, or accept that I may refute your posts but you live in your ivory tower.*
> 
> And if you think you are making some case in your weird connections of data points, I own a foxe's and Martyrs Mirror. My children use Martyrs mirror with school.





> Do you confess, before all reading this forum, that you have actually *read* all of Foxe's Book of Martyrs?


I answered your data point. This is where it ends because you should own up to recanting the shunning theatrics if you would like to engage me, the non-entity, in conversation. When you played up the histrionics the other day, you threw down a very serious and not to be lightly entertained means of separation. It is not so easily dismissed in my opinion and I have gone further with you than I should have bothered only because you, as is typical from your short stay here, are trying to portray some sort of situation in a light in which it does not exist. So balls in your court but you may not make me a non-entity and then ascribe false notions to me. Peace~~~

----------


## Nang

> I answered your data point. This is where it ends because you should own up to recanting the shunning theatrics if you would like to engage me, the non-entity, in conversation. When you played up the histrionics the other day, you threw down a very serious and not to be lightly entertained means of separation. It is not so easily dismissed in my opinion and I have gone further with you than I should have bothered only because you, as is typical from your short stay here, are trying to portray some sort of situation in a light in which it does not exist. So balls in your court but you may not make me a non-entity and then ascribe false notions to me. Peace~~~


So  . . . you cannot or will not say you have read Foxe's accounts of the Inquisitions.

Yet you show no hesitation in posting stuff that accuses Reformers of like crimes.

Do you think you are doing right?

----------


## Terry1

> So  . . . you cannot or will not say you have read Foxe's accounts of the Inquisitions.
> 
> Yet you show no hesitation in posting stuff that accuses Reformers of like crimes.
> 
> Do you think you are doing right?


What do you call someone who murders and tortures people for their beliefs?  Yeah--the reformers were evil and criminals in the eyes of God.

Oh that's right--you agreed with what Calvin did to Servitus.  Well--I guess we know what that makes you then don't we.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What do you call someone who murders and tortures people for their beliefs?


The Roman Catholic Inquisition

----------


## Terry1

> The Roman Catholic Inquisition


Who started it and does that make the reformers any less guilty?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who started it and does that make the reformers any less guilty?


Rome started it...and as Nang said, the sheer magnitude and inventive ways of torturing and murdering people is not even on the same scale as the few blemishes that some Reformation figures had.  It doesnt even come close.

You'll see the horrors when I post a thread about it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Ah, the Inquisition red herring.  


> Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. This tract will set the record straight. There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared. 
> Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations. 
> Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify _conversos_—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties. 
> The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition." 
> 
> *The Main Sources*
> Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself. 
> The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition’s bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church. 
> 
> ...


http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

----------


## acptulsa

> So we can ALL agree that ALL denominations have blood on their hands!


Blessed are the peacemakers, so I guess I should be helping you be one.  But, no, I can't go along with a statement like that.




> No, all do not. There are peace churches and nang and sola would like to ignore Martyrs Mirror which would be my suggestion over Foxe's. As for dubious it is a joke to act as though the Reformers were not killing Quakers as well. The sect was well read and left numerous journals and correspondences to document the situations they suffered as well as the primary source documents I have posted several times to which sola still refuses to acknowledge.


If we're going to make lists, I'd like to add the Amish and the Mennonites to the Quakers for the highest honors I can offer.  Even then, we are not doing justice to enough organized religions.




> Yeah, it is about time to learn some real history . . .


Good idea.  Have you got your teachable spirit on tonight?




> So  . . . you cannot or will not say you have read Foxe's accounts of the Inquisitions.
> 
> Yet you show no hesitation in posting stuff that accuses Reformers of like crimes.
> 
> Do you think you are doing right?


The reformers' crimes are well documented.  The fact that it was the Dark Ages and that Rome showed them how to do it notwithstanding, I think it safe to say that Lutheranism had a bloody birth.  Sad but true.

Intolerance was ugly.  It still is.  The trouble with letting God sort 'em out is what happens when the time comes for God to sort _us_ out.  All us flame warriors trying to barbecue each other at our virtual stakes could stand to remember that.  All of us.




> Ah, the Inquisition red herring.  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition


No.  But the Inquisition made Spain one of the safer places in Christendom at the time, because the places that didn't have it were even quicker to sate their blood lust in the name of God.  The Inquisition was horrible, but it put a little effort into not arresting people just because some neighbor wanted revenge on them, and though 'due process' to the Inquisition was torture, that was still usually better than no due process at all.  The Marquis de Sade, for example, didn't torture witches because if they could endure it he'd let them go.  He tortured witches for foreplay.

----------


## moostraks

> If we're going to make lists, I'd like to add the Amish and the Mennonites to the Quakers for the highest honors I can offer.  Even then, we are not doing justice to enough organized religions.


  I probably wasn't very clear in that post. I was referring to Amish and Mennonites with Martyrs Mirror. The book is over 1100 pages or so of the Anabaptist martyrs. So it is their history. The Quakers are separate and theirs is in individual journals such as George Fox's journal.  The documentation is extensive regarding the persecution of both of these sects. One has a duty to realize the history of their chosen path and to make such ignorant and callous statements blaming another church  for crimes while one's own faith path has a rich (documented not dubious) claim to its own blood thirsty response to other beliefs shows the lack of objective reasoning occurring.

----------


## moostraks

> So  . . . you cannot or will not say you have read Foxe's accounts of the Inquisitions.
> 
> Yet you show no hesitation in posting stuff that accuses Reformers of like crimes.
> 
> Do you think you are doing right?


Ya know, by your age sticking your fingers in your ears when someone responds to you is a bit more than pathetic. I am going to address your accusation not for you but to point out the foolishness of what is going on here. First off, it was a bunch of emotional hot heads such as yourself that your faith path is rich with and it is quite apparent that you think shunning and excommunication are just cute terms to be thrown around so that you can appear the victor in a conversation rather than showing the lack of respect you have for your fellow man and your ignorance on the terminology. You need to recant the shunning and not just pretend you did not put me in non-person status. Learn the terms you throw around and become educated on what _you_ chose to do.

Yes, I think it is perfectly right to hold a mirror up to any person who has been so baked in their faith's propaganda that they refuse to acknowledge it's seedier history and goes around accusing others of the same crimes their own church is guilty of *and* _has the audacity_ to use the term _dubious_ when there is reams of primary source documentation available to them by way of the very source of communication they are casting aspersions upon others. 

I was perplexed as to why you are beating the horse that you are on. How hard would it have been for you to google the book Martyrs Mirror? Sometimes you need to think before engaging yourself in combat. The book I recommended includes numerous accounts of martyrs at the hands of Rome as well as those from other reformers. You have a very small amount of knowledge on that era it seems. Martyrs Mirror, is a tomb on the persecution of another faith group that came from the Reformation. It is _the_ go to book for the Anabaptist history of martyrs.

So, I have Foxe's and Martyrs Mirror and would recommend the latter over the former because of my exposure to both. Foxe's is a propaganda piece used by those who have chosen a faith path that likewise was guilty of its fair share of violent and gory deaths in the name of faith. I think it is very right to point out hypocrisy when I am well aware of it. Please educate yourself on the history of your faith path.

----------


## moostraks

> THANK YOU.  I've decided to make your post very large so that everyone here sees it and reads it.
> 
> I am also going to create a thread dealing with horrific murder and torture of the Roman Catholic Inquisition.
> 
> (My guess is that the thread I will create will be censored while all of the threads created about Calvin and Luther will remain....let's watch and see)


And yet you ignore the history I have shown you several times to refute your claim that you have now skittered into a new thread to repeat with a slightly different tone. You are a shameless promoter of strife, selfish rivalries, and factions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And yet you ignore the history I have shown you several times to refute your claim that you have now skittered into a new thread to repeat with a slightly different tone. You are a shameless promoter of strife, selfish rivalries, and factions.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ic-Inquisition

----------


## moostraks

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ic-Inquisition


Thanks for underlining my point on hypocrisy and ignorance with that thread. What a mess! Btw learn the difference of your beliefs from the beliefs of the Anabaptists who were persecuted by your type.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thanks for underlining my point on hypocrisy and ignorance with that thread. What a mess! Btw learn the difference of your beliefs from the beliefs of the Anabaptists who were persecuted by your type.


My type?  What are you talking about, genius?  Do you not know again?  I AM a Baptist.  If I lived in Geneva, I MYSELF would have been persecuted by the magesterial reformation.

----------


## Terry1

> My type?  What are you talking about, genius?  Do you not know again?  I AM a Baptist.  If I lived in Geneva, I MYSELF would have been persecuted by the magesterial reformation.


I could really care less what you choose to believe or why or whatever you choose to call yourself either, but what does bother me is that you call it "biblical and of God".  

Your stated beliefs are not biblical, nor can you reconcile what you believe without perverting context of scripture by claiming that "all doesn't mean all" or that "world doesn't mean world" and that "dead faith doesn't actually mean dead faith" regarding James 2:17.  

If you want to and choose to believe this doctrine--that is your choice, but the true crime is attempting to place a square peg in a round hole by claiming this belief is of God.  That I do take issue with.

----------


## moostraks

> My type?  What are you talking about, genius?  Do you not know again?  I AM a Baptist.  If I lived in Geneva, I MYSELF would have been persecuted by the magesterial reformation.


Yep, then your type would have tortured those who defied you. Look at how you act on this forum. You abuse every form of discipline to push your own belief structure and have no problem bearing false witness with no remorse when caught to silence your opposition. I agreed some Baptists were killed but the belief structure you push comes from a rich heritage of death and torture and you think you can only claim one part without owning the other.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I could really care less what you choose to believe or why or whatever you choose to call yourself either, but what does bother me is that you call it "biblical and of God".  
> 
> Your stated beliefs are not biblical, nor can you reconcile what you believe without perverting context of scripture by claiming that "all doesn't mean all" or that "world doesn't mean world" and that "dead faith doesn't actually mean dead faith" regarding James 2:17.  
> 
> If you want to and choose to believe this doctrine--that is your choice, but the true crime is attempting to place a square peg in a round hole by claiming this belief is of God.  That I do take issue with.




You don't have the grounds to take issue with anything.  NOTHING you say is Biblical.  Jesus and the apostles condemned your false gospel of works with the HARSHEST language.  And then you have the nerve to even propose the Gnostic heresy that Jesus had sinful flesh (which you didn't even know was Gnosticism until it was pointed out to you).

Only on the internet....

----------


## Terry1

> You don't have the grounds to take issue with anything.  NOTHING you say is Biblical.  Jesus and the apostles condemned your false gospel of works with the HARSHEST language.  And then you have the nerve to even propose the Gnostic heresy that Jesus had sinful flesh (which you didn't even know was Gnosticism until it was pointed out to you).
> 
> Only on the internet....


And you who support your friend Nang who can't even rightly divide the word of God.  Nang who claimed that "the god of this world" was speaking of God Himself?  Nang who believes that there are 2 major covenants and only one law?  Nang who believes that satan is bound by her misinterpretation of Jude 1:6?  Nang who believes that God is the first cause of evil, sin and death?

Amuse me some more.  Neither one of you have a biblical clue and there's a reason why the two of you are blind as bats--because there is no clear understanding of the word of God absent the spirit of the Lord.  So where does that leave the two of you?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And you who support your friend Nang who can't even rightly divide the word of God.  Nang who claimed that "the god of this world" was speaking of God Himself?  Nang who believes that there are 2 major covenants and only one law?  Nang who believes that satan is bound by her misinterpretation of Jude 1:6?  Nang who believes that God is the first cause of evil, sin and death?
> 
> Amuse me some more.  Neither one of you have a biblical clue and there's a reason why the two of you are blind as bats--because there is no clear understanding of the word of God absent the spirit of the Lord.  So where does that leave the two of you?



Yes there is only one law, Terry1.   Your complete and utter fantasy of "two laws" is completely without a shred of Biblical support.  That is what you have to READ IN to the Bible in order to preach your false gospel of works.   

The new covenant is not that Christians have to do these new laws in order to save themselves.  The new covenant is that Jesus completely and perfectly saves His sheep.  JESUS performed the perfect work on their behalf.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes there is only one law, Terry1.   Your complete and utter fantasy of "two laws" is completely without a shred of Biblical support.  That is what you have to READ IN to the Bible in order to preach your false gospel of works. .


Do you understand that the word "covenant" means "LAW"?  This is simply common sense intelligence.  So then how can there be only one law and two covenants Sola?

So you're calling the Apostle Paul a liar here then?  How can you possibly only see one law indicated in that scripture???  Spiritual blindness causes this.  Romans 3:

 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what *law? of works*? Nay: but by the* law of faith. 
*


> The new covenant is not that Christians have to do these new laws in order to save themselves.  The new covenant is that Jesus completely and perfectly saves His sheep.  JESUS performed the perfect work on their behalf.


Read my reply to Nang here:




> Quote Originally Posted by Terry1 View Post 
> 
> We're not talking about Gods covenant with Abraham though--we're discussing the "two laws"--one that refers to the law of dead works and the other that pertains to faith.
> 
>  God made covenants with Noah, Abraham and David--these are not the two major covenants. The two major covenants are the Law of Moses, OT and the Law of faith NT.
> 
> 
> 
>  All of the covenants/laws that God made with anyone were "moral laws"--God can't make any other kind. 
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you're calling the Apostle Paul a liar here then?  How can you possibly only see one law indicated in that scripture???  Spiritual blindness causes this.  Romans 3:
> 
>  27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what *law? of works*? Nay: but by the* law of faith. 
> *
> 
> Read my reply to Nang here:


No, I'm not calling Paul a liar,  I'm calling you a non Christian. 

What Paul is saying is that boasting is impossible because we are not saved by our works, we are saved completely by God's grace.  I cannot glory in my own works and say "look how good and holy I was".  I can't do this because the law condemns me.  I have sinned.  I can't be saved by my works.  I cannot boast in ANYTHING I've done.


The irony is that you preach the EXACT thing that Paul is condemning there!  You are saying that it IS your works that matter (which would give you a ground of boasting before God).


You are simply spiritually blind.  You can't understand the text right in front of your face.

----------


## Terry1

> No, I'm not calling Paul a liar,  I'm calling you a non Christian. 
> 
> What Paul is saying is that boasting is impossible because we are not saved by our works, we are saved completely by God's grace.  I cannot glory in my own works and say "look how good and holy I was".  I can't do this because the law condemns me.  I have sinned.  I can't be saved by my works.  I cannot boast in ANYTHING I've done.
> 
> 
> The irony is that you preach the EXACT thing that Paul is condemning there!  You are saying that it IS your works that matter (which would give you a ground of boasting before God).
> 
> 
> You are simply spiritually blind.  You can't understand the text right in front of your face.


Do you understand that the word "covenant" means "LAW"? This is simply common sense intelligence. So then how can there be only one law and two covenants Sola?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you understand that the word "covenant" means "LAW"? This is simply common sense intelligence. So then how can there be only one law and two covenants Sola?


Yes. The new covenant is when _Christ Himself_ fulfills the laws demands on behalf of His sheep.  This is what the entire books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews are about.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes. The new covenant is when _Christ Himself_ fulfills the laws demands on behalf of His sheep.  This is what the entire books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews are about.



Two covenants--two laws Sola.  1. The Mosaic Law=dead works.  2. The Law of Faith=works of faith.  Two covenants two laws--one law condemns us--the other saves us.  It's as simple as that and what the Apostle Paul is telling you that you keep perverting and corrupting to say something else.  Read my reply to Nang that I just reposted.

----------


## Terry1

> No.  Works do not save us.  You are a false teacher.  I promise you that all who will be in Hell are the ones who believe their works save them.


WRONG!  The only way you can be saved and of the Elect is through your "works of faith".  Without works of faith--you are dead and fall back under the curse of the Mosaic Law.

1 Thessalonians 1:3 
 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; 
 2 Thessalonians 1:11 
 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

 James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
 This^^^^is the "Law of Faith" and works done under it are the only path to salvation.




 Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law in the context of that scripture here--*20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
*

 Here, Paul is talking about being justified by the "law of faith--under the New Covenant--*Romans 2:13 
 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified*.

 Because if you don't understand the difference between these 2 Laws--then the word of God become a contradiction and then as Sola--you have to start changing the scripture to support whatever belief it is that you have by claiming "all doesn't mean all" or that "dead faith doesn't mean dead". By my interpretation--Gods word then reconciles and you don't have to change words or meaning to make it fit what you've chosen to believe. Now this reconciles with all of Scripture--James, Paul and John all saying the same thing without having to pervert the context of scripture.

----------


## Nang

> *By my interpretation*--Gods word then reconciles and you don't have to change words or meaning to make it fit what you've chosen to believe. Now this reconciles with all of Scripture--James, Paul and John all saying the same thing without having to pervert the context of scripture.




Your "interpretation" is all it is . . . ideas that float out of your own head.

I have never read another believer make the claims you make in the name of Christ.

----------


## Deborah K

> Moostraks,
> 
> Can you confess, before all on this forum, that you have actually read Foxe's Book of Martyrs?





> Do you confess, before all reading this forum, that you have actually *read* all of Foxe's Book of Martyrs?





> So  . . . you cannot or will not say you have read Foxe's accounts of the Inquisitions.
> 
> Yet you show no hesitation in posting stuff that accuses Reformers of like crimes.
> 
> Do you think you are doing right?


All this over whether she's read Foxe?

----------


## Terry1

> Your "interpretation" is all it is . . . ideas that float out of your own head.
> 
> I have never read another believer make the claims you make in the name of Christ.


So when are you going to refute that post I made to you Nang instead of claiming how biblically incorrect I am with nothing to back that up.  As usual--you're all mouth and nothing to back it up.

----------


## Nang

> So when are you going to refute that post I made to you Nang instead of claiming how biblically incorrect I am with nothing to back that up.  As usual--you're all mouth and nothing to back it up.



Your post is so full of error, it would take me a couple of days to rebut, and knowing how stubborn you are, it would be a waste of time.

If you can't see truth, you can't see.

----------


## Nang

> All this over whether she's read Foxe?


Have you read Foxe?  

I'm on her case, because she does nothing but produce data against "Calvinists," when there is a worse side to the story.

All of us need to read what we can of church history, to find proper perspective on what our faith means to each of us.

----------


## Deborah K

> Have you read Foxe?  
> 
> I'm on her case, because she does nothing but produce data against "Calvinists," when there is a worse side to the story.
> 
> All of us need to read what we can of church history, to find proper perspective on what our faith means to each of us.


No, I haven't read it.  Don't intend to, either.  Doesn't sound like anything that would bring me closer to the Lord.

----------


## moostraks

> Have you read Foxe?  
> 
> I'm on her case, because she does nothing but produce data against "Calvinists," when there is a worse side to the story.
> 
> All of us need to read what we can of church history, to find proper perspective on what our faith means to each of us.


And you still seem incapable of googling Martyrs Mirror. The single minded ignorance to keep repeating a claim without listening to the response. The worst side of the story wasn't the poor Protestants who went on to martyr those who opposed them. The worst part of the story was the peace churches who suffered at everyone's hands which is why I recommended the book I did over your propaganda. So stop for a second and think before throwing terms like dubious around over allegations of abuse at the hands of Protestants and do your own research and see all the primary source documentation that exists and remove the mote from your own eye.

----------


## moostraks

> No, I haven't read it.  Don't intend to, either.  Doesn't sound like anything that would bring me closer to the Lord.


It is popular with Protestants that then go on to develop a persecution complex and throw it at Catholics to play the victim card. I don't recommend it. I see the wisdom in being aware of the power of corruption but not when it is merely used as a weapon like Foxe's is being used.

----------


## Deborah K

> It is popular with Protestants that then go on to develop a persecution complex and throw it at Catholics to play the victim card. I don't recommend it. I see the wisdom in being aware of the power of corruption but not when it is merely used as a weapon like Foxe's is being used.



That's what I thought.  I don't really need any more awareness of the power of corruption.  I'm in the freedom movement....

----------


## moostraks

> That's what I thought.  I don't really need any more awareness of the power of corruption.  I'm in the freedom movement....


Exactly. I don't find any good comes from marinating in it because it creates this type of hatred and perpetrates victim mentality. The fact that sola brushes off the Protestant abuses as "blemishes" and gets all bent out of shape about Catholicism is just verbal manipulation for personal gain. I hate manipulative tactics and it is the only reason I have engaged in the discussion. Our own burning times ex communicator shows how the mind set is still dangerously entrenched in current faith paths and worthy of discussion but only as a means to deal with the prejudices that cause one to be so anti liberty when faith is in question.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's what I thought.  I don't really need any more awareness of the power of corruption.  I'm in the freedom movement....


Why do you associate with a church that has a violent, brutal history of murder and torture, and today still has a confession that supports statism and economic slavery?

You do know that the Catholic Catechism is collectivist, right?

----------


## Deborah K

> Why do you associate with a church that has a violent, brutal history of murder and torture, and today still has a confession that supports statism and economic slavery?
> 
> You do know that the Catholic Catechism is collectivist, right?


I'm not Catholic, Sola.  I'm a non-denominational Christian.

----------


## Terry1

> Why do you associate with a church that has a violent, brutal history of murder and torture, and today still has a confession that supports statism and economic slavery?
> 
> You do know that the Catholic Catechism is collectivist, right?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Exactly. I don't find any good comes from marinating in it because it creates t*his type of hatred and perpetrates victim mentality. The fact that sola brushes off the Protestant abuses as "blemishes" and gets all bent out of shape about Catholicism* is just verbal manipulation for personal gain. I hate manipulative tactics and it is the only reason I have engaged in the discussion. Our own burning times ex communicator shows how the mind set is still dangerously entrenched in current faith paths and worthy of discussion but only as a means to deal with the prejudices that cause one to be so anti liberty when faith is in question.



What on earth are you talking about?  

Haven't I said that I don't agree with any persecution and don't defend it at all?  

_Why do you still group me with Calvinism when my very spiritual forefathers were persecuted by Calvin?_

----------


## Deborah K

> Why do you associate with a church that has a violent, brutal history of murder and torture, and today still has a confession that supports statism and economic slavery?
> 
> You do know that the Catholic Catechism is collectivist, right?


And btw, this statement doesn't identify as a debatable point, it is an attack on a particular religion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And btw, this statement doesn't identify as a debatable point, it is an attack on a particular religion.


No, I disagree.  The forum rules say that an attack is an assertion without any evidence.  I provided evidence.  It's not an attack.

----------


## Deborah K

> No, I disagree.  The forum rules say that an attack is an assertion without any evidence.  I provided evidence.  It's not an attack.


Speaking of your "unfavorable view on a certain religion" - when do you intend to answer Bryan's questions posed to you here?  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...first-post)-SF

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Speaking of your "unfavorable view on a certain religion" - when do you intend to answer Bryan's questions posed to you here?  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...first-post)-SF


I don't know yet.  Those are very broad questions.  I'd have to sit down and think about them in detail.  Also, I don't think those threads get many views.  The threads that get views are the threads where there is contention.  People like to see two sides go at it so they can decide for themselves where the truth is.

----------


## Deborah K

> No, I disagree.  The forum rules say that an attack is an assertion without any evidence.  I provided evidence.  It's not an attack.


Please link your "evidence" that the RCC "still has a confession that supports statism and economic slavery".

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't know yet.  Those are very broad questions.  I'd have to sit down and think about them in detail.


I really think you should do it.  Bryan is trying to measure how to adjust the guidelines so that there might be more civility in the forum.  He needs everyone's views on the un-favorability of certain religions in order to do that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I really think you should do it.  Bryan is trying to measure how to adjust the guidelines so that there might be more civility in the forum.  He needs everyone's views on the un-favorability of certain religions in order to do that.


Why does he need it in that thread though?  I'm contending for my faith in every thread I post in.

----------


## moostraks

> What on earth are you talking about?  
> 
> Haven't I said that I don't agree with any persecution and don't defend it at all?  
> 
> _Why do you still group me with Calvinism when my very spiritual forefathers were persecuted by Calvin?_


1-sola believers were persecuted but also persecutors
2-you are playing a false narrative. I posted the history. I know the difference between your theology and those of the peace churches. 
3-for a person against persecution you sure have a funny way of showing
4-you have called yourself Calvinist before

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1-sola believers were persecuted but also persecutors
> 2-you are playing a false narrative. I posted the history. I know the difference between your theology and those of the peace churches. 
> *3-for a person against persecution you sure have a funny way of showing*
> 4-you have called yourself Calvinist before



WHAT?  When have I EVER condoned persecution or called for force at any time????

----------


## Brett85

> You don't have the grounds to take issue with anything.  NOTHING you say is Biblical.  Jesus and the apostles condemned your false gospel of works with the HARSHEST language.  And then you have the nerve to even propose the Gnostic heresy that Jesus had sinful flesh (which you didn't even know was Gnosticism until it was pointed out to you).
> 
> Only on the internet....


Jesus had human flesh.  Why is it such an extreme and heretical position to say that Jesus was tempted by sin since he was in human flesh?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus had human flesh.  Why is it such an extreme and heretical position to say that Jesus was tempted by sin since he was in human flesh?


That is not what she said.  She said Jesus had SINFUL flesh.  This is heretical and evil.  Jesus did not have sinful flesh.  Jesus is the Second Adam.  He is perfect in his HUMANITY and his DIVINITY.

----------


## Deborah K

> Why does he need it in that thread though?  I'm contending for my faith in every thread I post in.


Do you really have to ask that?  Bryan is too busy to scroll through all your posts.  In the spirit of cooperation, Sola, just go through your own posts and put together answers for him based on what you've already written if it makes it easier on you.  Please?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you really have to ask that?  Bryan is too busy to scroll through all your posts.  In the spirit of cooperation, Sola, just go through your own posts and put together answers for him based on what you've already written if it makes it easier on you.  Please?


Why do you want that so bad?

----------


## moostraks

> WHAT?  When have I EVER condoned persecution or called for force at any time????


You do not see you behavior as any sort of a testimony? If you and nang were not so obnoxiously destroying the peaceful exchange on this forum...You force your crap on every thread almost. When all we have is our words in the medium for exchange, ones beliefs are weighed by the testimony provided through the discussions. Stalking people, harassing them with false allegations, pouncing on every post and telling them to silence, threatening people with eternal damnation...

This ain't your church and the sub forum is peace through religion.

----------


## Nang

> Why do you want that so bad?


I know!!  I know!!

----------


## Nang

> You do not see you behavior as any sort of a testimony? If you and nang were not so obnoxiously destroying the peaceful exchange on this forum...You force your crap on every thread almost. When all we have is our words in the medium for exchange, ones beliefs are weighed by the testimony provided through the discussions. Stalking people, harassing them with false allegations, pouncing on every post and telling them to silence, threatening people with eternal damnation...
> 
> This ain't your church and the sub forum is peace through religion.




Have you ever witnessed the behavior exhibited in a witches' coven?

----------


## moostraks

> Have you ever witnessed the behavior exhibited in a witches' coven?


Good grief, now what kind of kick are you on?

I was never a member of a coven, nor was I interested. Thinking you will stir up some wrath on pagans now or is your blood lust satiated?

----------


## Nang

> Good grief, now what kind of kick are you on?
> 
> I was never a member of a coven, nor was I interested. Thinking you will stir up some wrath on pagans now or is your blood lust satiated?



No, I am not motivated to "stir up wrath."  That is exactly what witches do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You do not see you behavior as any sort of a testimony? If you and nang were not so obnoxiously destroying the peaceful exchange on this forum...You force your crap on every thread almost. When all we have is our words in the medium for exchange, ones beliefs are weighed by the testimony provided through the discussions. Stalking people, harassing them with false allegations, *pouncing on every post and telling them to silence*, threatening people with eternal damnation...
> 
> This ain't your church and the sub forum is peace through religion.


Just an hour ago, you were calling for the censorship of my posts!   What a hypocrite you are!  If it was up to me, there would NEVER be a moderated post on this entire website.

And let me clarify, I believe in FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.  Don't you even dare intimate that I believe in force of ANY kind.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Good grief, now what kind of kick are you on?
> 
> I was never a member of a coven, nor was I interested. Thinking you will stir up some wrath on pagans now or is your blood lust satiated?



Here is the operating manual for the Roman Catholic Inquisition:

 




*Here are the excerpts about how witches must be hunted and tortured:*
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/N1676b.cfm

----------


## moostraks

> No, I am not motivated to "stir up wrath."  That is exactly what witches do.


Harm none...modern witch creed. Allegation is false. Do some research. 




> Just an hour ago, you were calling for the censorship of my posts!   What a hypocrite you are!  If it was up to me, there would NEVER be a moderated post on this entire website.
> 
> And let me clarify, I believe in FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.  Don't you even dare intimate that I believe in force of ANY kind.


I stated certain posts promoting hate and division should be moved to their appropriate section. Stop lying about my responses. You have exceeded your false witness quota on me for the week.

----------


## moostraks

> Here is the operating manual for the Roman Catholic Inquisition:
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Here are the excerpts about how witches must be hunted and tortured:*
> http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/N1676b.cfm


And the Puritans? How'd that go again???

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Harm none...modern witch creed.



"Harm none" is the "modern witch creed"?  Tell me more about this religion.

----------


## moostraks

> "Harm none" is the "modern witch creed"?  Tell me more about this religion.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harm+none+witch

----------


## acptulsa

> Also, I don't think those threads get many views.  The threads that get views are the threads where there is contention.  People like to see two sides go at it so they can decide for themselves where the truth is.





> 6 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
> 
> 2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
> 
> 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
> 
> 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
> 
> 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
> ...





> 34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
> 
> 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.


..

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ..


Yes.  That verse is about praying in public so that you get to brag about how "holy" you are.  Jesus said pray in private.  He didn't say preach in private, which would be absurd.  The Great Commission says that we preach and disciple all the nations.

----------


## acptulsa

> Also, I don't think those threads get many views.  The threads that get views are the threads where there is contention.  People like to see two sides go at it so they can decide for themselves where the truth is.





> Yes.  That verse is about praying in public so that you get to brag about how "holy" you are.  Jesus said pray in private.  He didn't say preach in private, which would be absurd.  The Great Commission says that we preach and disciple all the nations.


You think creating contention is the same thing as preaching?

----------


## Deborah K

> Why do you want that so bad?


Because I would like the forums to return to what it once was.  A place for fellowshipping, respectful debate, a place for RP faithful to find some common ground.  I don't like what you and Nang, and FF (to a certain degree) have turned it into.

----------


## Nang

> Because I would like the forums to return to what it once was.  A place for fellowshipping, respectful debate, a place for RP faithful to find some common ground.  I don't like what you and Nang, and FF (to a certain degree) have turned it into.



Then you evidence no love for the truths of God.

----------


## Deborah K

> Then you evidence no love for the truths of God.


Yeah, that's right, Nang.  I evidence no love for the truths of God.  

"Ye shall know them by their fruits."

----------


## TER

> Then you evidence no love for the truths of God.


Nang, you do not demonstrate any love.  You really are such a sad person and I truly feel badly for you.  This subforum was certainly contentious before your arrival, but since you have arrived it has turned into something dark and evil.  You will try and make the claim that it is because you are bringing truth, but the fruits reveal who you are really serving. Your presence here is unhealthy to anyone here, you have become a complete distraction, you have no respect for others or for their religious convictions, and if I was the moderator here you would have been permantley banned a long time ago.

----------


## Nang

> Yeah, that's right, Nang.  I evidence no love for the truths of God.  
> 
> "Ye shall know them by their fruits."



You do not know me, nor have you a clue as to my Christian walk of 42 years, 
thus you have never seen my spiritual fruits.  _You blindly judge me_ and oppose
me simply because you do not love the Scriptural truths that I post.

----------


## Deborah K

> You do not know me, nor have you a clue as to my Christian walk of 42 years, 
> thus you have never seen my spiritual fruits.  _You blindly judge me_ and oppose
> me simply because you do not love the Scriptural truths that I post.


The same could be said of you about me.

----------


## Nang

> Nang, you do not demonstrate any love.  You really are such a sad person and I truly feel badly for you.  This subforum was certainly contentious before your arrival, but since you have arrived it has turned into something dark and evil.  You will try and make the claim that it is because you are bringing truth, but the fruits reveal who you are really serving. Your presence here is unhealthy to anyone here, you have become a complete distraction, you have no respect for others or for their religious convictions, and if I was the moderator here you would have been permantley banned a long time ago.


Well, at least you had sense enough to edit this out of your post:




> I am appealing to the moderators to get rid of you once and for all


Getting caught saying something like that could ruin your beautiful image, right?

----------


## Deborah K

> Nang, you do not demonstrate any love.  You really are such a sad person and I truly feel badly for you.  This subforum was certainly contentious before your arrival, but since you have arrived it has turned into something dark and evil.  You will try and make the claim that it is because you are bringing truth, but the fruits reveal who you are really serving. Your presence here is unhealthy to anyone here, you have become a complete distraction, you have no respect for others or for their religious convictions, and if I was the moderator here you would have been permantley banned a long time ago.


I'm sorry to say I have to agree with this.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, at least you had sense enough to edit this out of your post:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting caught saying something like that could ruin your beautiful image, right?


He tempered himself.  Something you have no ability to do, apparently.

----------


## Nang

> The same could be said of you about me.



I am not judging you or your fruits, Deborah.  

However, your opposition to the three of us, who* all testify to the saving and sovereign grace of God,*
evidences you do not like or love this scriptural truth.  Otherwise, why would you desire to silence us?

----------


## TER

> Well, at least you had sense enough to edit this out of your post:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting caught saying something like that could ruin your beautiful image, right?


I felt bad about posting it, but it is the truth and I am not too worried about my image.  I am more worried about my friends here and the state of this website and it has become my mission now to have you banned for good.

----------


## Nang

> He tempered himself.  Something you have no ability to do, apparently.



LOL

Again you will have to ask Bryan, who I am sure often becomes weary reading my numerous edits!

----------


## Nang

> I felt bad about posting it, but it is the truth and I am not too worried about my image.  I am more worried about my friends here and the state of this website and *it has become my mission now to have you banned for good.*



I am not surprised at all . . .

----------


## acptulsa

> Because I would like the forums to return to what it once was.  A place for fellowshipping, respectful debate, a place for RP faithful to find some common ground.  I don't like what you and Nang, and FF (to a certain degree) have turned it into.


Actually, there has long been contention in this subforum.  It used to be Christians trying to help atheists understand that they need not be afraid of Christianity, because not all Christians are as hateful as the ones they were raised around.

But here lately...



Instead we have self-styled preachers screaming at the choir.

'YOU CAN'T GET TO HEAVEN ON WORKS!  YOU GOTTA HAVE GRACE!'

'We believe, but we still want to do works.'

'YOU CAN'T GET TO HEAVEN ON WORKS!  YOU GOTTA HAVE GRACE!'

'We believe, but we still want to do works.'

Etc.

If God's getting any benefit from this, I'm sure I don't know what it is.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am not judging you or your fruits, Deborah.  
> 
> However, your opposition to the three of us, who* all testify to the saving and sovereign grace of God,*
> evidences you do not like or love this scriptural truth.  Otherwise, why would you desire to silence us?


I've been a member for 7 years now, and have never been accused of trying to silence anyone.  And there are plenty of people here I don't agree with.  

I have no problem with your testimony, Nang.  How many freakin different ways do I have to state that before it sinks in????  It's the manner in which you relay your beliefs, i.e. through accusations, condemnation, judgment, final authority, etc.  It offends.  It produces no fruit.  As Tod has stated, it's shameful.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "Harm none" is the "modern witch creed"?  Tell me more about this religion.


"Harming none" is Biblical (Proverbs 3:30, 1 Peter 4:15, Matthew 5:9, Luke 6:31, Romans 12:18.)  I understand that its not the Biblical terminology, but it is true.  Its the "then do as you will" part that's Wiccan in nature.  Christians don't need secular government to know what acts displease God, even if God is the only direct victim.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "Harming none" is Biblical (Proverbs 3:30, 1 Peter 4:15, Matthew 5:9, Luke 6:31, Romans 12:18.)  I understand that its not the Biblical terminology, but it is true.  Its the "then do as you will" part that's Wiccan in nature.  Christians don't need secular government to know what acts displease God, even if God is the only direct victim.


Actually,  it's not Biblical because Jesus said "DO unto others".  It is a positive command.  The way the Moostrak Potter puts it, it is a negative command.  It is saying "DONT do something".

----------


## acptulsa

> Actually,  it's not Biblical because Jesus said "DO unto others".  It is a positive command.  The way the Moostrak Potter puts it, it is a negative command.  It is saying "DONT do something".


I don't buy this definition either.  Giving a person a break is positive enough for me.

----------


## Nang

> I've been a member for 7 years now, and have never been accused of trying to silence anyone.  And there are plenty of people here I don't agree with.  
> 
> I have no problem with your testimony, Nang.  How many freakin different ways do I have to state that before it sinks in????  It's the manner in which you relay your beliefs, i.e. through accusations, condemnation, judgment, final authority, etc.  It offends.  It produces no fruit.  As Tod has stated, it's shameful.



Well, I resent your criticism, when others here are far more offensive and hateful than I have ever been.  You are not on their case, let alone even trying to correct them.

I was never welcomed here by any of you women, excepting Louise.  Bless her heart.  I am sure I was led to this site, just to meet her, for she is a Godly woman who responses with joy to the truths some of us are attempting to share on this site.

----------


## Terry1

> Have you ever witnessed the behavior exhibited in a witches' coven?


No, but then how would you know how witches behave?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I felt bad about posting it, but it is the truth and I am not too worried about my image.  I am more worried about my friends here and the state of this website and it has become my mission now to have you banned for good.


Wow.  What happened to you TER?

----------


## Nang

> No, but then how would you know how witches behave?



I have had to deal with a few in my day . . .

----------


## Terry1

> Well, I resent your criticism, when others here are far more offensive and hateful than I have ever been.  You are not on their case, let alone even trying to correct them.
> 
> I was never welcomed here by any of you women, excepting Louise.  Bless her heart.  I am sure I was led to this site, just to meet her, for she is a Godly woman who responses with joy to the truths some of us are attempting to share on this site.


You've created your own hell.

----------


## Terry1

> I have had to deal with a few in my day . . .



Nang, I know there's some people here that would like to get behind you because they too share your belief, but you've made it too difficult for them to defend you at this point and not because of anyone else--but because of yourself and your constant accusations against the others in here that don't share your belief.  

Do you understand what I'm saying here at all?  I have no idea how anyone can get to be your age of 73 years old and act like a child who can't understand why they're being disciplined and treated the way they are.

----------


## acptulsa

> Wow.  What happened to you TER?


He got tired of not being able to spread the good news and make joyful noises because he's too damned busy defending himself.

----------


## robert68

> I felt bad about posting it, but it is the truth and I am not too worried about my image.  I am more worried about my friends here and the state of this website and it has become my mission now to have you banned for good.


Too bad its not the good ole days of the Orthodox Church when dissenters like her could be murdered or forcibly silenced.  

You and your comrads are throwing stones in a big glass house.

----------


## Terry1

> Too bad it’s not the good ole days of the “Orthodox Church” when dissenters like her could be murdered or forcibly silenced.


Wow!  How did you go from someone wanting to show someone the door because of their horrific behavior to implying they want to murder them?  Whoa--that's just a bit out of line there IMO.

You should delete that post robert--that's way out of line.

----------


## Nang

> Nang, I know there's some people here that would like to get behind you because they too share your belief, but you've made it too difficult for them to defend you at this point and not because of anyone else--but because of yourself and your constant accusations against the others in here that don't share your belief.  
> 
> Do you understand what I'm saying here at all?  I have no idea how anyone can get to be your age of 73 years old and act like a child who can't understand why they're being disciplined and treated the way they are.


Bah . . .

----------


## moostraks

> Actually,  it's not Biblical because Jesus said "DO unto others".  It is a positive command.  The way the Moostrak Potter puts it, it is a negative command.  It is saying "DONT do something".


The way moostraks puts it is how it is taught in modern circles (pun not intended). Nang made a false statement and now you think you can run with arguing with pagans who news flash don't want a damn thing to do with you. Many have escaped the wrath of god crowd and have no intention on listening to your hog wash of distortions. Strife, lies, factions, all feed its father a steady stream of egos to chew up and drown in fear and negativity. The dish you will be served is that which you serve others.

----------


## Terry1

> Wow.  What happened to you TER?


Maybe he's tired of you and Nang hijacking his threads, calling him unchristian, an idolater, whining to the mods about him and basically making it impossible for him to start any thread without the two of you tag teaming his efforts to be loving, generous and kind to everyone.  Everyone has their limits Sola and no one has shown more patience with the two of you than TER considering all that the two of you have said and done to him and the rest of us who don't share your belief.

----------


## Nang

> Wow!  How did you go from someone wanting to show someone the door because of their horrific behavior to implying they want to murder them?  Whoa--that's just a bit out of line there IMO.
> 
> You should delete that post robert--that's way out of line.


Not at all.

To desire in one's heart to hate and silence the messengers of truth, is the same as the O.T. killing of prophets.

It is no different than the Inquisitions that were meant to silence the true gospel of grace against the RCC oppresive method of works.

Silencing truth is murder in the eyes of God, no matter who does it or how it is done.

----------


## Nang

> Maybe he's tired of you and Nang hijacking his threads, calling him unchristian, an idolater, whining to the mods about him and basically making it impossible for him to start any thread without the two of you tag teaming his efforts to be loving, generous and kind to everyone.  Everyone has their limits Sola and no one has shown more patience with the two of you than TER considering all that the two of you have said and done to him and the rest of us who don't share your belief.



A light was shown upon your idol, Terry, and it crumbled into dust, revealing what a corruptible human it really was.

----------


## Theocrat

> Maybe he's tired of you and Nang hijacking his threads, calling him unchristian, an idolater, whining to the mods about him and basically making it impossible for him to start any thread without the two of you tag teaming his efforts to be loving, generous and kind to everyone.  Everyone has their limits Sola and no one has shown more patience with the two of you than TER considering all that the two of you have said and done to him and the rest of us who don't share your belief.


But don't you understand, Terry? If you don't believe in justification by faith, then you're not saved! Justification by faith is the only way people can know Jesus because justification by faith justifies itself...by faith. That is the Gospel. If you don't agree with me, then you're a heretic!

----------


## otherone

> I was never welcomed here by any of you women, excepting Louise.  Bless her heart.  I am sure I was led to this site, just to meet her, for she is a Godly woman who responses with joy to the truths some of us are attempting to share on this site.


AAAAWWWWWW.   Welcome, Nang!!!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But don't you understand, Terry? If you don't believe in justification by faith, then you're not saved! Justification by faith is the only way people can know Jesus because justification by faith justifies itself...by faith. That is the Gospel. If you don't agree with me, then you're a heretic!


Theo...seriously.   Are you saying that anything other than justification by Christ's imputed righteousness is a saving gospel?   Come to your senses man!  Return to your first love!  It is GOD ALONE who saves!

----------


## Terry1

> Not at all.
> 
> To desire in one's heart to hate and silence the messengers of truth, is the same as the O.T. killing of prophets.
> 
> It is no different than the Inquisitions that were meant to silence the true gospel of grace against the RCC oppresive method of works.
> 
> Silencing truth is murder in the eyes of God, no matter who does it or how it is done.


It's certainly clear to see who the accusers and haters are here.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, I resent your criticism, when others here are far more offensive and hateful than I have ever been.  You are not on their case, let alone even trying to correct them.
> 
> *I was never welcomed here by any of you women*, excepting Louise.  Bless her heart.  I am sure I was led to this site, just to meet her, for she is a Godly woman who responses with joy to the truths some of us are attempting to share on this site.


This is another lie.  I attempted to engage you, and even +repped you when you first came.  I NEVER outright reject ANYONE - EVER!  It's not my way. Your harsh words are what turned the women here and some of the men against you.  It's sad that you don't see it for what it is.  I would like to be friends with you, Nang.  But, it's clear to me, that you and Sola are not here to make friends.  You are here to have a spiritual war with other Christians.  You have said so.  

Yes, bless Louise.  She is indeed a Godly woman.  Nothing like you, I'm sorry to say.  Maybe her tender heart will melt yours.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I was never welcomed here by any of you women, excepting Louise.  Bless her heart.  I am sure I was led to this site, just to meet her, for she is a Godly woman who responses with joy to the truths some of us are attempting to share on this site.


I'm so happy you two met.

----------


## Deborah K

> Wow.  What happened to you TER?


Nang happened to him.  She has the ungodly ability to bring the very worst out of people.  I've seen her do it to a few people here.  It's disturbing.

----------


## otherone

> I'm so happy you two met.

----------


## VIDEODROME

What if the Potter has Claws or Tentacles?  

That be some H.P. Lovecraft pottery $#@!.

----------


## Deborah K

> You've created your own hell.


I'm ripping this off.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nang happened to him.  She has the ungodly ability to bring the very worst out of people.  I've seen her do it to a few people here.  It's disturbing.


She has the ability to present the truth of the gospel to a forum full of people who have never heard it.  It is offensive,  I know.  God's Word clearly says that the gospel is an offense to sinful men.  They hate it.

----------


## otherone

> What if the Potter has Claws or Tentacles?  
> 
> That be some H.P. Lovecraft pottery $#@!.

----------


## VIDEODROME

ermahgerd Cthulhu.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theo...seriously.   Are you saying that anything other than justification by Christ's imputed righteousness is a saving gospel?   Come to your senses man!  Return to your first love!  It is GOD ALONE who saves!


No, I'm saying that your emphasis on the doctrine of "justification by faith" is a "Shibboleth." If someone doesn't instantiate it in the same way that you believe it should be expressed, then you have an annoying habit of berating them about not being a Christian. That's the God's honest truth, my brother.

What I've been saying to you, Nang, and FreedomFanatic is that "justification by faith" is linked to the Gospel, but it is *not* the Gospel! There is more to the Gospel than just "justification," Sola. And, no, I'm not saying that man contributes anything to salvation, by or of himself. But the Gospels do not teach "justification by faith," at least, not explicitly as Paul does in the later Epistles. I've challenged you, Nang, and FreedomFanatic to show me any passage in the Gospel accounts where "justification by faith" is Jesus' main thrust of His Gospel. I have not seen your evidences yet.

----------


## VIDEODROME

What if the Potter is just a big head that uses Telekinesis?

----------


## Nang

> This is another lie.  I attempted to engage you, and even +repped you when you first came.  I NEVER outright reject ANYONE - EVER!  It's not my way.



Sorry, I do not remember any such attempt on your part. 

 I apologize if I am wrong, but this neg rep is what I find in my "Settings" just a little over a week after I joined:



03-12-2014 09:06 PM
Deborah K
*Thread: The Early Church Fathers and Free Will*
You're out of line, missie. You don't come on this forum as a new member and tell a senior member how to post! You need some humble pie.

----------


## Deborah K

> She has the ability to present the truth of the gospel to a forum full of people who have never heard it.  It is offensive,  I know.  God's Word clearly says that the gospel is an offense to sinful men.  They hate it.


No.  As an avid reader of the Bible, God's word is not offensive to me.  You are offensive to me.  Nang is offensive to me.  Get that straight.  You abuse certain verses in the Bible to justify your harsh and unyielding views of everyone else to the exclusion of the Bible in its entirety.

----------


## Terry1

> She has the ability to present the truth of the gospel to a forum full of people who have never heard it.  It is offensive,  I know.  God's Word clearly says that the gospel is an offense to sinful men.  They hate it.


You're both such martyrs aren't you.  Throwing yourselves into this den of heathens while stabbing us to death with your accusations, name calling and insults and working so hard to witness the love and the message of Christ.

The only way you believe that you've done the work of Christ is if everyone hates you for it, so you work so hard at being hated then don't you.  Well--you've succeeded--  So now do tell how many souls have you won to Christ for this?

----------


## otherone

> What if the Potter is just a big head that uses Telekinesis?

----------


## Deborah K

> Sorry, I do not remember any such attempt on your part. 
> 
>  I apologize if I am wrong, but this is what I find in my "Settings" just a little over a week after I joined:
> 
> 
> 
> 03-12-2014 09:06 PM
> Deborah K
> *Thread: The Early Church Fathers and Free Will*
> You're out of line, missie. You don't come on this forum as a new member and tell a senior member how to post! You need some humble pie.


Yes, that was when you turned on TER, and I defended him.  AFTER, I +repped you.  It was at this time that your true colors came out.  You were arrogantly dictating to him how he should respond in his OWN thread.  I remember it well.

----------


## robert68

> Wow!  How did you go from someone wanting to show someone the door because of their horrific behavior to implying they want to murder them?  Whoa--that's just a bit out of line there IMO.


I didn't, I was making a point with sarcasm. The smiley is there. 

I don’t find her behavior to be horrific. She has a different point of view than the Roman Catholics and Byzantinists aka ‘’Orthodox Christians” and expresses it. You're allowed to do that here. The history of neither church is one of tolerance, far from it.  I’m not a theist, but I am a libertarian, and the history of the “Orthodox Church” is antithetical to libertarianism. None of that matters to TER, and apparently you too, based on your identification with the OC and posts in this thread. 




> You should delete that post robert--that's way out of line.

----------


## otherone

> What if the Potter is just a big head that uses Telekinesis?


better still....

----------


## Deborah K

> You're both such martyrs aren't you.  Throwing yourselves into this den of heathens while stabbing us to death with your accusations, name calling and insults and working so hard to witness the love and the message of Christ.
> 
> The only way you believe that you've done the work of Christ is if everyone hates you for it, so you work so hard at being hated then don't you.  Well--you've succeeded--  So now do tell how many souls have you won to Christ for this?


This is the truth.  Twisted though it is, unfortunately.

----------


## Theocrat

> She has the ability to present the truth of the gospel to a forum full of people who have never heard it.  It is offensive,  I know.  God's Word clearly says that the gospel is an offense to sinful men.  They hate it.


Yeah, and Nang also has the ability to ignore discussions in which she can't give a Biblical presentation, even though she claims to be such a faithful advocate of the Reformed principle of _Sola Scriptura_. I've challenged her to present evidences to me on why she thinks I'm a heretic about certain doctrinal issues, and she has refused to do so, even though I'm ready to defend my position by the Scriptures.

So, she may have the ability to present the Gospel better than some Christians, but she definitely lacks the courage to defend her accusations towards a fellow believer when he is willing to engage her by the same principle that she claims to defend--_Sola Scriptura_.

----------


## Nang

> Yes, that was when you turned on TER, and I defended him.  AFTER, I +repped you.  It was at this time that your true colors came out.  You were arrogantly dictating to him how he should respond in his OWN thread.  I remember it well.




Here is the post.  I don't think it warranted your nasty neg rep at all, but it sure showed me your true colors:






> Originally Posted by *TER* 
> of this, we are in agreement! 
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your post seems to me to just be trying to justify the theological opinion that man was not created with free will, which is a theological opinion and doctrine which is an innovative interpretation of the Scriptures (where can one find the term 'Holy Moral Law' in the Scriptures?). But it does not have to be that hard, in fact, the truth is much simpler! God created Adam with free will (just as Israel and the Christians have always believed) and Adam disobeyed God freely by his own will. The only author of this sin is Adam (and the devil takes a big responsibility of course), but according to John Calvin it is God Who is the author of sin, and that sadly is the logical conclusion of the Reformer's doctrines no matter how many mental backflips and gymnastic moves are attempted in order to refute it.


(My answer that offended you so horribly!)




> Biblical references to validate the former, and historical references to validate the latter . . . or else be disqualified for participatig in this discussion.





> Bryan has agreed and established this is the way to handle religious discussion.

----------


## Terry1

> A light was shown upon your idol, Terry, and it crumbled into dust, revealing what a corruptible human it really was.


What a morbid, sick and disgusting thing to say about another brethren in Christ.  You should be ashamed, but we all know that's not going to happen.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yeah, and Nang also has the ability to ignore discussions in which she can't give a Biblical presentation, even though she claims to be such a faithful advocate of the Reformed principle of _Sola Scriptura_. I've challenged her to present evidences to me on why she thinks I'm a heretic about certain doctrinal issues, and she has refused to do so, even though I'm ready to defend my position by the Scriptures.
> 
> So, she may have the ability to present the Gospel better than some Christians, but she definitely lacks the courage to defend her accusations towards a fellow believer when he is willing to engage her by the same principle that she claims to defend--_Sola Scriptura_.


This is what Nang does: she will brow-beat Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Arminians about _Sola Scriptura_, stressing how important it is to start from the Bible when believing any doctrine of the Faith. Yet, when another Christian comes along and challenges her by that same principle, she suddenly runs and hides, hoping that by ignoring that person, she can remain true to _Sola Scriptura_. So, I say that Nang is not consistent in her appeals to the Scriptures, and it speaks very much about her character as a Christian. What's worse is that everyone else here (Christian and non-Christian alike) sees how she truly is.

----------


## Deborah K

> "..... or else be disqualified for participatig in this discussion."


Brand new to the forums, and you presume to tell the OP (an established and well respected member) in his own thread that if his answer isn't sufficient to your liking, then he is disqualified from participating in his own thread.  And you think that is appropriate.  And here you have it, folks.  Arrogance at its worst.

----------


## Deborah K

> This is what Nang does: she will brow-beat Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Arminians about _Sola Scriptura_, stressing how important it is to start from the Bible when believing any doctrine of the Faith. Yet, when another Christian comes along and challenges her by that same principle, she suddenly runs and hides, hoping that by ignoring that person, she can remain true to _Sola Scriptura_. So, I say that Nang is not consistent in her appeals to the Scriptures, and it speaks very much about her character as a Christian. What's worse is that everyone else here (Christian and non-Christian alike) sees how she truly is.


And she doesn't even have the decency to accept Bryan's invitation to debate her belief that some religions are unfavorable, yet she hides behind him every chance she gets.  It's really despicable.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And she doesn't even have the decency to accept Bryan's invitation to debate her belief that some religions are unfavorable, yet she hides behind him every chance she gets.  It's really despicable.


Maybe not everyone has the time to really dig in and debate.   I know for myself, my work suffers when I am on the boards too much.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, I resent your criticism, when others here are far more offensive and hateful than I have ever been.  You are not on their case, let alone even trying to correct them.
> 
> I was never welcomed here by any of you women, excepting Louise.  Bless her heart.  I am sure I was led to this site, just to meet her, for she is a Godly woman who responses with joy to the truths some of us are attempting to share on this site.


You are so advanced in your understandings have you forgotten something so simple as you reap what you sow?  Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.  This current chaos is a world of your own creation.

The full revelation of foreordination is one of the more beautiful understandings in the Word; but you are not sharing any revelation when every word that you construct is condemnation and division.  You pass it off like we are really the divisive ones, when here was full of joy and peace here before you came and stole that away.  You came in here, sowed division, and you are surprised that division is what you have reaped.  You came in here, sowed hatefulness and disdain, and now you are surprised that hatefulness and disdain is what you have reaped. Well, now that you have accomplished your goal of making everyone hate each other, what do you propose to do now?

It is not a blessing to welcome the adversary into one's home.  You would not bring the enemy into your own camp in a time of war, and truly today good and evil are at war.




> *John 10:7-10*
> New American Standard Bible (NASB)7 So Jesus said to them again, Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and *[a]*have _it_ abundantly.*[a]* John 10:10 Or _have abundance_


You guys are too busy condemning even your own best friends and allies straight to the pits of hell, to even recall the fragrances of godliness, let alone discern the leading of the Spirit.

You come in sowing damnation, and then you are surprised that you have reaped damnation.  Yet this process is basic Kingdom Law.  How then should I discern your level of understanding here?  You talk and act so grown up like you only eat the real meat, but the law of reaping and sowing is axiomatic.  It is in fact some of the _very first_ milk.  If you do not understand that the reason this place has blown up in condemnation is because you have come into here and sown condemnation, which is a concept that comes in the baby's milk, then how exactly am I supposed to process your demand for meat?

You have seen...one, small, piece of God's glory and you think you are superior to everyone else because they have been given to see a different piece.  Speaking of vessels made for dishonor, perhaps the example will be a vessel that has been given EVERYTHING; and yet still fails to _love_ most of all.  But even if that is so, do not fear only love.  For perfect love casts out fear.  Love God, and learn to love the people He has placed in your way.

Pray He open the eyes of your heart, mind, and soul to see the nature of eternity, and all of that whereupon the Spirit alights; and be it the power of revelation to draw you back to grace in truth.  Do not harden your heart like Israel in the day of Moses, who wandered in the desert for 40 years, and whose selfish lack of faith ultimately prevailed to prevent even Moses in his own sins from sharing the Promise in life.

God stands at the door and knocks.  Answer then and be caught up for a time as a witness of my testimony, and as a testimony from the Living God that my words are true; retaining a certain insight into the eternal realm that would otherwise have fled upon the return to temporality, and thus the key to your dilemma, and the knowledge that it pleases God to love someone whom you hate.

No one has the answer to who is saved but God and those whom He has sealed.  These decisions will not be rendered on the finer points of some discrete doctrinal dispute, but on a full-throated love of God and the desire to become given to His will.  Those who are given to His will will take on His character, and bear His fruit with them.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> What if the Potter has Claws or Tentacles?  
> 
> That be some H.P. Lovecraft pottery $#@!.


_Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn._
(Rejoice that Cthulhu sleeps! In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxScTbIUvoA

----------


## Nang

> You are so advanced in your understandings have you forgotten something so simple as you reap what you sow?  Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.  This current chaos is a world of your own creation.
> 
> The full revelation of foreordination is one of the more beautiful understandings in the Word; but you are not sharing any revelation when every word that you construct is condemnation and division.  You pass it off like we are really the divisive ones, when here was full of joy and peace here before you came and stole that away.  You came in here, sowed division, and you are surprised that division is what you have reaped.  You came in here, sowed hatefulness and disdain, and now you are surprised that hatefulness and disdain is what you have reaped. Well, now that you have accomplished your goal of making everyone hate each other, what do you propose to do now?
> 
> It is not a blessing to welcome the adversary into one's home.  You would not bring the enemy into your own camp in a time of war, and truly today good and evil are at war.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are too busy condemning even your own best friends and allies straight to the pits of hell, to even recall the fragrances of godliness, let alone discern the leading of the Spirit.
> ...



Thank you for sharing your opinions . . .

----------


## acptulsa

So the atheists stand at the church door, afraid to come in because the pastors are bickering so hard everyone is convinced the knives are about to come out.

The devil himself couldn't possibly arrange a situation better suited to his ends.  This is like Satanic COINTEL.  Trollin' on Beezelbub.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> She has the ability to present the truth of the  gospel to a forum full of people who have never heard it.  It is  offensive,  I know.  God's Word clearly says that the gospel is an  offense to sinful men.  They hate it.


So if others find such presentations offensive, then they are sinful haters of truth?

In the logic business, that's called the fallacy of "affirming the consequent" ...

----------


## Dr.3D

Everybody should remember, it takes two to tango.   If folks didn't enjoy what's going on here, they wouldn't get involved in it and it would go away for lack of interest.

----------


## Nang

> And she doesn't even have the decency to accept Bryan's invitation to debate her belief that some religions are unfavorable, yet she hides behind him every chance she gets.  It's really despicable.



Why should I debate a (forced) negative subject, rather than try to stay focused on defending my faith in the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ?  

I am sure Bryan has a pretty good idea of what I find disfavor in by now.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

*Psalm 95:6-11*
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

*6* Come, let us worship and bow down,
Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker.
*7* For He is our God,
And we are the people of His *[a]*pasture and the sheep of His hand.
Today, *[b]*if you would hear His voice,
*8* Do not harden your hearts, as at *[c*_ the struggle_*]*Meribah,
As in the day of *[d*_ the temptation_*]*Massah in the wilderness,
*9* “When your fathers tested Me,
They tried Me, though they had seen My work.
*10* “For forty years I loathed _that_ generation,
And said they are a people who err in their heart,
And they do not know My ways.
*11* “Therefore I swore in My anger,
Truly they shall not enter into My rest.”

*Footnotes:*
[a]Psalm 95:7 Lit _pasturing_
[b]Psalm 95:7 Or _O that you would obey_
[c]Psalm 95:8 Or _place of strife_
[d]Psalm 95:8 Or _temptation_

----------


## Deborah K

> Maybe not everyone has the time to really dig in and debate.   I know for myself, my work suffers when I am on the boards too much.


She has time.  She spends a great deal of time on this board.  She's already claimed it was manipulative of Bryan to initiate the discussion.

----------


## Deborah K

> Thank you for sharing your opinions . . .



Opinions and interpretations are all you have either, Nang.

----------


## Deborah K

> Everybody should remember, it takes two to tango.   If folks didn't enjoy what's going on here, they wouldn't get involved in it and it would go away for lack of interest.


I don't enjoy it Dr.. Push back is necessary unfortunately.  This will all come to end one way or another.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> So the atheists stand at the church door, afraid to come in because the pastors are bickering so hard everyone is convinced the knives are about to come out.


Or we decide to keep walking and find a pub.

----------


## Deborah K

> Why should I debate a (forced) negative subject, rather than try to stay focused on defending my faith in the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ?  
> 
> I am sure Bryan has a pretty good idea of what I find disfavor in by now.


Bryan is very distracted these days.  He could care less about any of this right now, I'm sure.

----------


## Nang

> She has time.  She spends a great deal of time on this board.  She's already claimed it was manipulative of Bryan to initiate the discussion.



I never said Bryan was manipulating the matter.

----------


## Nang

> Opinions and interpretations are all you have either, Nang.



I believe the Holy Spirit indwells my soul and that He is my guide into all truth.

You can argue my faith, but you can't take it away from me or make me doubt it.

----------


## Deborah K

> I never said Bryan was manipulating the matter.


You stated putting those threads up was manipulative.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I don't enjoy it Dr.. Push back is necessary unfortunately.  This will all come to end one way or another.


As long as you keep pushing, it will continue.   

Isn't it best to just let it die?

People get tired pretty fast when they are talking to themselves.

----------


## Nang

> You stated putting those threads up was manipulative.



Link.

----------


## Deborah K

> I believe the Holy Spirit indwells my soul and that He is my guide into all truth.
> 
> You can argue my belief, but you can't take it away from me or make me doubt it.


Like I want to take your belief from you.  Get a grip woman.  In case you haven't noticed, I don't argue with you about your belief.  I argue with you about your treatment of others.

----------


## Deborah K

> Link.


When I feel like it, I'll dig around to prove you lie for about the fourth time.  Anyone who's been paying attention already knows what your M.O. is though.

----------


## Deborah K

> As long as you keep pushing, it will continue.   
> 
> Isn't it best to just let it die?
> 
> People get tired pretty fast when they are talking to themselves.


I'll let it go when the time is right.  I'm getting close.  I'm about to start a new thread in Hot Topics.

----------


## Nang

> Like I want to take your belief from you.  Get a grip woman.  In case you haven't noticed, *I don't argue with you about your belief.  I argue with you about your treatment of others*.


From what I can tell from your various reactions and responses, that equates to being just about the same thing.

----------


## Deborah K

> From what I can tell from your various reactions and responses, that equates to being just about the same thing.


You may be right, if you believe you are justified in being cruel to others regarding their theologies and belief systems. And I think you do.  Even though it is unbiblical.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> You may be right, if you believe you are justified in being cruel to others regarding their theologies and belief systems. And I think you do.  Even though it is unbiblical.


I'm trying to figure this out: 

Preaches to people.  Observes they are "Not of God" or simply not getting the message.  

Keeps preaching anyway, because being condescending is to fun.

----------


## Terry1

> I believe the Holy Spirit indwells my soul and that He is my guide into all truth.
> 
> You can argue my faith, but you can't take it away from me or make me doubt it.


Well one thing for sure--there's certainly something that's indwelling your soul and you are every bit evidence of that which does too.

----------


## Nang

> I'm trying to figure this out: 
> 
> Preaches to people.  Observes they are "Not of God" or simply not getting the message.  
> 
> Keeps preaching anyway, because being condescending is to fun.



Well, it is better than* continuing to oppose* the gospel of faith in Jesus Christ as revealed in Holy Scripture.

Right?

Why would anyone want to do that day after day after day after day . . . ?

----------


## VIDEODROME

I merely comment on it and I do tend to be skeptical of it.  I don't go around the board condemning people in harsh language. 

Like......  if you don't agree with my secular views, you will be condemned to Detroit!!

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm trying to figure this out: 
> 
> Preaches to people.  Observes they are "Not of God" or simply not getting the message.  
> 
> Keeps preaching anyway, because being condescending is to fun.


I don't understand the logic.  I really don't.

----------


## Terry1

> Well, it is better than* continuing to oppose* the gospel of faith in Jesus Christ as revealed in Holy Scripture.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Why would anyone want to do that day after day after day after day . . . ?


But what you believe isn't what everyone else wants to believe.  Do you want Catholics shoving their faith down your throat?  Worship your god that you've chosen and leave everyone else alone to worship theirs.  This forum isn't your personal pulpit and these people aren't yours to abuse and accuse either.  Who the hell do you think you are anyway?

----------


## Deborah K

I've started a new thread in Hot Topics.  I'd love to get everyone's thoughts.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Religion-Forum

----------


## Dr.3D

> I've started a new thread in Hot Topics.  I'd love to get everyone's thoughts.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Religion-Forum


Is it safe?

----------


## moostraks

> Is it safe?


not for long...

----------


## Deborah K

Little Hitler's head just exploded in there I think.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, I'm saying that your emphasis on the doctrine of "justification by faith" is a "Shibboleth." If someone doesn't instantiate it in the same way that you believe it should be expressed, then you have an annoying habit of berating them about not being a Christian. That's the God's honest truth, my brother.
> 
> What I've been saying to you, Nang, and FreedomFanatic is that "justification by faith" is linked to the Gospel, but it is *not* the Gospel! There is more to the Gospel than just "justification," Sola. And, no, I'm not saying that man contributes anything to salvation, by or of himself. But the Gospels do not teach "justification by faith," at least, not explicitly as Paul does in the later Epistles. I've challenged you, Nang, and FreedomFanatic to show me any passage in the Gospel accounts where "justification by faith" is Jesus' main thrust of His Gospel. I have not seen your evidences yet.


John 3:16-18.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Actually,  it's not Biblical because Jesus said "DO unto others".  It is a positive command.  The way the Moostrak Potter puts it, it is a negative command.  It is saying "DONT do something".


Yeah, I agree with your point, but surely doing unto others what you would want done unto you also logically implies not doing to others what you don't want them to do to you.  Coercive violence is wrong because, among other reasons, we wouldn't want it done to us.

----------


## otherone

> Yeah, I agree with your point, but surely doing unto others what you would want done unto you also logically implies not doing to others what you don't want them to do to you.  Coercive violence is wrong because, among other reasons, we wouldn't want it done to us.



The word you are missing is _empathy_...imagining how the other guy would feel, based on how you feel.  Empathy leads to _compassion_, and_ mercy_, and_ forgiveness_.  It's a good word.

----------


## moostraks

> The word you are missing is _empathy_...imagining how the other guy would feel, based on how you feel.  Empathy leads to _compassion_, and_ mercy_, and_ forgiveness_.  It's a good word.


A mighty fine word, and yet the process seems so elusive to some.

----------


## Theocrat

> John 3:16-18.


FreedomFanatic, that passage is simply expressing the importance of believing in Jesus Christ because God sent Him into the world to die for Jews and Gentiles alike ("for God so loved the world"). It is not talking about "justification by faith alone," for nowhere in that passage is justification brought up.

More importantly, John's Gospel does not pit "faith" against "works," as we Calvinists often think about when discussing justification. In fact, John 6:29 calls belief in Jesus Christ a work. In John 14:15, Jesus says, "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." He continues that same point in Verse 21, saying, "He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me, and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him." So we see that Christ also emphasizes in His Gospel the keeping of His commandments, not just "faith in Him alone." Yet, it seems that you would accuse Jesus of teaching "works-based salvation" because you attempt to impose "justification by faith" upon the Gospel of John. The context simply does not allow that, and you can't use one passage as a proof-text for "justification by faith" being the main thrust of the Gospel when the entire book needs to be read in its full context, FreedomFanatic.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> The word you are missing is _empathy_...imagining how the other guy would feel, based on how you feel.  Empathy leads to _compassion_, and_ mercy_, and_ forgiveness_.  It's a good word.


I kind of like to think it can go a step further with a kind of collective empathy.  That we're all in this thing together and it's so much easier to make good progress if we cooperate and contribute if we can.

----------


## pcosmar

I have never said "The potter has no hands".

But I also do not ascribe to God what is done by the destroyer. Even though God takes ultimate responsibility at times..
And even though the Word puts it on Him at times. (this is where balance is necessary)

God did not accuse Job.. Satan did.



> And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?”  Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason?  Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.  But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.”


God did not afflict Job. Satan did.



> And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.


And even though God takes responsibility for it.. It was not his doing. Read it.. And read it again ,,and again till you understand this.



> “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity,* although you incited me against him to destroy* him without reason.”


God sometimes takes ultimate responsibility for the works of Satan.. (He did create him,, and has allowed him to continue)

I prefer to put the blame where it properly belongs.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FreedomFanatic, that passage is simply expressing the importance of believing in Jesus Christ because God sent Him into the world to die for Jews and Gentiles alike ("for God so loved the world"). It is not talking about "justification by faith alone," for nowhere in that passage is justification brought up.
> 
> More importantly, John's Gospel does not pit "faith" against "works," as we Calvinists often think about when discussing justification. In fact, John 6:29 calls belief in Jesus Christ a work. In John 14:15, Jesus says, "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." He continues that same point in Verse 21, saying, "He that hath My commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me, and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him." So we see that Christ also emphasizes in His Gospel the keeping of His commandments, not just "faith in Him alone." Yet, it seems that you would accuse Jesus of teaching "works-based salvation" because you attempt to impose "justification by faith" upon the Gospel of John. The context simply does not allow that, and you can't use one passage as a proof-text for "justification by faith" being the main thrust of the Gospel when the entire book needs to be read in its full context, FreedomFanatic.


Theo, a living faith is going to include keeping God's commandments.  But John 3:18 is incredibly clear.  The difference between he who is condemned and he who is not condemned is BELIEF.  Not works.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Why bother having commandments?  

Just gotta believe the story that Jesus is the savior.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Why bother having commandments?


You will have to ask God about that.   He is the one who issued them.

----------


## pcosmar

> You will have to ask God about that.   He is the one who issued them.


Yes he did,, and for a purpose.. and I concur,, Ask God.. He will answer you if you ask him honestly..

And Jesus condensed the Commandments into one command.. Love.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes he did,, and for a purpose.. and I concur,, Ask God.. He will answer you if you ask him honestly..
> 
> And Jesus condensed the Commandments into one command.. Love.


Who, in the history of mankind, has loved God with all their heart soul strength and mind, and loved their neighbor exactly as themselves?

----------


## pcosmar

> Who, in the history of mankind, has loved God with all their heart soul strength and mind, and loved their neighbor exactly as themselves?


Jesus.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yes he did,, and for a purpose.. and I concur,, Ask God.. He will answer you if you ask him honestly..
> 
> And Jesus condensed the Commandments into one command.. Love.


Love..... it's just a little four letter word.   

If everybody loved those around them as much as they love themselves, there would be no need for governments.   There would be no wars and the resources once expended for war and destruction would be used for constructive purposes.  Imagine how much more advanced we would be as a society if we didn't waste resources on war.

Love,  it's a word some have twisted to the point where many believe it means sex.   

I am not depressed because I know there will come a time when war is a thing of the past and everybody will love each other.

I believe that time will be in the not too distant future.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jesus.


Correct.

So why do you think God will accept your imperfect acts of love that are tainted with sin?  Won't God only accept Jesus' perfect acts of love?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Correct.
> 
> So why do you think God will accept your imperfect acts of love that are tainted with sin?  Won't God only accept Jesus' perfect acts of love?


Perhaps it's not about His accepting imperfect acts of love but rather to glorify Him.




> *Matthew 5:16*   Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. _KJV_

----------


## acptulsa

> Correct.
> 
> So why do you think God will accept your imperfect acts of love that are tainted with sin?  Won't God only accept Jesus' perfect acts of love?





> As usual, your theology tends to contradict gospel...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Matthew
> 
> ...


..

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Correct.
> 
> So why do you think God will accept your imperfect acts of love that are tainted with sin?  Won't God only accept Jesus' perfect acts of love?


It seems like if he wanted perfect people he would have made us perfect.  So maybe God doesn't want perfection?

----------


## TER

> Correct.
> 
> So why do you think God will accept your imperfect acts of love that are tainted with sin?  Won't God only accept Jesus' perfect acts of love?


You keep forgetting about the Holy Spirit, Sola.  The Holy Spirit is what perfects us into the image of Christ.  Though we are weak, He strengthens us.  Though we are sinners, He sanctifies us.  The entire reason Christ said He came was to be able to send the Holy Spirit, so that by God Himself abiding in us, we might rise above the imperfections we were born into and rise up with Christ and share in His heavenly glory.  No one believes we can be perfect on our own, or by our own merits, but worship our loving and merciful God Who out of love deigned to unite us with Him.   We believe in the Holy Trinity.  Let us not minimize or forget the essential role the Holy Spirit plays in our salvation, which is indeed our theosis and deification by and in the grace of God.

----------


## pcosmar

> Correct.
> 
> So why do you think God will accept your imperfect acts of love that are tainted with sin?  Won't God only accept Jesus' perfect acts of love?


And what makes you think that God sees anything but the Blood of Jesus when he looks at me.

This is not any righteousness on my part. But on What Christ has done.
I look forward to the time that I am released from this flesh. But until then I will trust in what I have been shown that Christ did on that cross.

I ignore the Accusations of the Adversary.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And what makes you think that God sees anything but the Blood of Jesus when he looks at me.
> 
> This is not any righteousness on my part. But on What Christ has done.
> I look forward to the time that I am released from this flesh. But until then I will trust in what I have been shown that Christ did on that cross.
> 
> I ignore the Accusations of the Adversary.


Pete, if this is your heartfelt belief, then wow, I can call you my brother.  But before I do that, do you believe that Jesus died for every person so that even the ones in Hell can claim Jesus' perfect life on their behalf?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I ignore the Accusations of the Adversary.


Did Paul have the "spirit of the adversary" when he accused the Judiazers of perverting the gospel?

You can't be saying that every person who accuses someone of anything is evil, right?   Some accusations are true, right?

----------


## pcosmar

> Pete, if this is your heartfelt belief, then wow, I can call you my brother.  But before I do that, do you believe that Jesus died for every person so that even the ones in Hell can claim Jesus' perfect life on their behalf?


I believe that Jesus hold the Keys of heaven and hell.. and that he went into hell and preached to those that had died without knowledge of him.



> For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe that Jesus hold the Keys of heaven and hell.. and that he went into hell and preached to those that had died without knowledge of him.


Okay, but do you believe that Jesus died for every single person who will ever live?

----------


## acptulsa

> Okay, but do you believe that Jesus died for every single person who will ever live?


I advise no one to answer this question until you make him define 'live'.

There is life and there is Life Eternal.  Just as soon as you talk about one he will insist he was talking about the other--and berate you for mischaracterizing it.  Guaranteed.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Are the Neanderthals saved?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are the Neanderthals saved?


The who?

----------


## acptulsa

> The who?


You really should be more circumspect how you talk about Pete Townsend...

----------


## TER

Sola, how is it that everyone, including sinners, will be resurrected at the final judgement?  Christ's work on the cross is the reason why everyone will rise again because He has saved everyone from bodily death. But this doesn't replace the fact that after we rise we won't then be judged on those things Christ said He would judge us on.

----------


## pcosmar

> Okay, but do you believe that Jesus died for every single person who will ever live?


Yes I do,, unequivocally. However,,and unfortunately,, some will not accept it. Some will side with Satan in his rebellion.
(this is a great sadness)
But is is a free gift offered to all.

From Adam to that last human ever born.




> For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,…

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I advise no one to answer this question until you make him define 'live'.
> 
> There is life and there is Life Eternal.  Just as soon as you talk about one he will insist he was talking about the other--and berate you for mischaracterizing it.  Guaranteed.



Acptulsa, why would you have this in your signature line, as if it is a "gotcha" against me?



> Originally Posted by Sola_Fide  View Post
> But the Lord places a stumbling block in front of men. That stumbling block is Jesus Himself.


Sir, do you not know that Jesus is described as the stumbling block in the Scripture?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes I do,, unequivocally. However,,and unfortunately,, some will not accept it. Some will side with Satan in his rebellion.
> But is is a free gift offered to all.
> 
> From Adam to that last human ever born.


Ah, so I can't call you my brother.  And I can't call you a Christian either.

You said before that it was Jesus' righteousness alone that saves you.  But how could that be if Jesus died for everyone?  Why does Jesus' righteousness save one person but not another?

----------


## Theocrat

> Theo, a living faith is going to include keeping God's commandments.  But John 3:18 is incredibly clear.  The difference between he who is condemned and he who is not condemned is BELIEF.  Not works.


Once again, you are trying to separate belief from works, which John doesn't do in his Gospel. I've already shown you where Jesus tells His disciples that to believe in Him is to do the work of God, in John 6:29. So John is showing us that belief is linked to works.

I know why you're trying to do that, though. You keep assuming that "justification by faith alone" applies to any mention of works in John's Gospel, but that just begs the question, FreedomFanatic. Nowhere in the book of John is the theme of (forensic) justification the main focus of the Gospel.

Even your citation of John 3:18 doesn't support your claim that John 3:16-18 is focusing on "justification by faith" as opposed to works. When we read the context of that passage, we notice that in John 3:19-21 it says:




> And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.


Jesus specifically says that "he who does truth comes to the light." Once again, it is the language of works. And it is the light which shows that those works are good because they are "wrought in God" (compare that phrasing to Matthew 5:16). So, my point is "justification by faith alone" is not the main theme of John's Gospel, so it should not be assumed to be. Just let the text speak on its own.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, how is it that everyone, including sinners, will be resurrected at the final judgement?  Christ's work on the cross is the reason why everyone will rise again because He has saved everyone from bodily death. But this doesn't replace the fact that after we rise we won't then be judged on those things Christ said He would judge us on.


At the judgement, some will be resurrected to life, and others will be resurrected unto death.  

TER, you are saying that it is something other than the works of Christ alone that causes one to be saved, and that is a lie form the pit of Hell.  There is NOTHING that God will accept on the last day except a perfect righteousness.  A man is saved when that perfect righteousness is applied to his account by imputation.

----------


## acptulsa

> Acptulsa, why would you have this in your signature line, as if it is a "gotcha" against me?
> 
> 
> Sir, do you not know that Jesus is described as the stumbling block in the Scripture?


I don't believe you.  And...




> 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.


...doesn't say that.




> Ah, so I can't call you my brother.





> 17 - Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't believe you.  And...
> 
> 
> 
> ...doesn't say that.



Acptulsa,

Sir, because you are not aware of this, I will proclaim to you that Jesus is that rock of offense that causes men to stumble.




> *Romans 9:30-33
> 
> What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written:
> 
> “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
>     and a rock that makes them fall,
>     and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”*

----------


## acptulsa

> Acptulsa,
> 
> Sir, because you are not aware of this, I will proclaim to you that Jesus is that rock of offense that causes men to stumble.


Link or it didn't happen.

And, no, no amount of alcohol or anything else can convince me that the 'rock' in that passage is Jesus Christ.  Too much reading comprehension for that; I don't think I could ever get blitzed enough to misread it that badly.

Pete already identified that rock for you.

----------


## Theocrat

> Ah, so I can't call you my brother.  And I can't call you a Christian either.
> 
> You said before that it was Jesus' righteousness alone that saves you.  But how could that be if Jesus died for everyone?  Why does Jesus' righteousness save one person but not another?


Sola, it doesn't matter if you don't call pcosmar "your brother" nor a "Christian" because he is both, whether you believe it or not. It's not contingent upon your judgment to determine who is a Christian and who is not, when that person has acknowledged many times that Jesus is his Lord and Savior (as pcosmar has done). For all of your rebukes towards fellow believers, you cannot even see the abomination that you commit yourself when you sow discord among the brethren (see Proverbs 6:16-19). Shame on you, Sola. *Your theology has become dross because you lack charity.*

----------


## pcosmar

> Ah, so I can't call you my brother.  And I can't call you a Christian either.


And that is not my concern.
I believe you have gotten caught up in an error of understanding.. And error built upon other errors.. going back to the error of Original sin.




> Well it goes to the origin of Sin..
> 
> Which was not Adam.. and scripture makes that clear.. "Through Adam sin entered into the world".. and it also says that Sin was before the Law.
> 
> Sin entered through Adam,,but Adam was not the origin of Sin..
> 
> And My point was Original Sin.. It's Origin.  It was not Adam.
> 
> And this (thread) was inspired by discussions in some other threads.. Specifically, the potter and the broken pots.
> ...


And I would ask nothing more of you than you ask Him honestly to show you..

Go to your private place,,and ask the Creator,,"Why did you do this"..  and then wait for his answer..
(It may take a while to show you ) He reveals only what we can handle and builds it stone upon stone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Link or it didn't happen.
> 
> And, no, no amount of alcohol or anything else can convince me that the 'rock' in that passage is Jesus Christ.  Too much reading comprehension for that; I don't think I could ever get blitzed enough to misread it that badly.
> 
> Pete already identified that rock for you.



Sir, Jesus IS the Rock of Offense.  Let's look really closely at this and go really slow with it:




> 1st Peter 2:4-9 
> 
> As you come *to him, the living Stone*rejected by humans but *chosen by God and precious to him* you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  For in Scripture it says:
> 
> See, I lay *a stone* in Zion,
> *a chosen and precious cornerston*e,
> and the one who trusts* in him*
>     will never be put to shame.
> 
> ...




The "living Stone" is Jesus.

The "living Stone" is the rock of offense that makes people stumble.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Put To Shame = Damned

?????

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, it doesn't matter if you don't call pcosmar "your brother" nor a "Christian" because he is both, whether you believe it or not. It's not contingent upon your judgment to determine who is a Christian and who is not, when that person has acknowledged many times that Jesus is his Lord and Savior (as pcosmar has done). For all of your rebukes towards fellow believers, you cannot even see the abomination that you commit yourself when you sow discord among the brethren (see Proverbs 6:16-19). Shame on you, Sola. *Your theology has become dross because you lack charity.*


He said that Jesus is His Lord and Savior?  But what "Jesus" does he worship?   The idol that died for every man and saved no one?  How can you sit idly by while a person believes a false gospel of Arminianism?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Link or it didn't happen.
> 
> And, no, no amount of alcohol or anything else can convince me that the 'rock' in that passage is Jesus Christ.  Too much reading comprehension for that; I don't think I could ever get blitzed enough to misread it that badly.
> 
> Pete already identified that rock for you.


Here is part of the Matthew Henry commentary on that verse.



> Christ himself is to some a stone of stumbling, for which he quotes Isa. 8:14; 28:16. It is sad that Christ should be set for the fall of any, and yet it is so (Lu. 2:34), that ever poison should be sucked out of the balm of Gilead, that the foundation-stone should be to any a stone of stumbling, and the rock of salvation a rock of offence; so he is to multitudes; so he was to the unbelieving Jews, who rejected him, because he put an end to the ceremonial law.





> *Isaiah 8:14*   And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. _KJV_





> *Isaiah 28:16*  Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. _KJV_





> *Luke 2:34*  And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; _KJV_


Of course, that is a commentary and the opinion of another person.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> The who?


Salvation:  So easy a Caveman can do it.

----------


## Theocrat

> He said that Jesus is His Lord and Savior?  But what "Jesus" does he worship?   The idol that died for every man and saved no one?  How can you sit idly by while a person believes a false gospel of Arminianism?


Sola, pcosmar is wrong about that, as I believe all Arminians are. But, nonetheless, they are Christians because they are in Christ (by faith and by baptism), and, as such, they need to be challenged and corrected because of that fact, not in spite of the fact. There are also Calvinists who have some of their Christology wrong, too, but does that mean they are not my brothers? Of course not! We are all disciples, Sola. We must constantly grow in our understanding of God, and that is what makes us children of God. Children mature over time, after all. So try to have some long-suffering when engaging your brother about his views, as God suffered long with you before you became convinced of your current theological positions.

----------


## pcosmar

> See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
> and* a rock that makes them fall,*
> and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.


Hmmm,,
I wonder why all these Scribes and Pharisees who studied the Law and the Prophets day and night did not see that the scriptures were being fulfilled right before their eyes.



> He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
> Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona,* because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.* "I also say to you that you are Peter,* and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.*


Ah,, another "rock".. and it is not Peter,, but it is the Revelation Knowledge. ( flesh and blood did not reveal this)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He said that Jesus is His Lord and Savior?  But what "Jesus" does he worship?   The idol that died for every man and saved no one?  How can you sit idly by while a person believes a false gospel of Arminianism?





> Sola, pcosmar is wrong about that, as I believe all Arminians are. But, nonetheless, they are Christians because they are in Christ (by faith and by baptism), and, as such, they need to be challenged and corrected because of that fact, not in spite of the fact. There are also Calvinists who have some of their Christology wrong, too, but does that mean they are not my brothers? Of course not! We are all disciples, Sola. We must constantly grow in our understanding of God, and that is what makes us children of God. Children mature over time, after all. So try to have some long-suffering when engaging your brother about his views, as God suffered long with you before you became convinced of your current theological positions.


What on earth is the point of debating a baptismal regenerationist on whether universal atonement is a damnable heresy or not?  Federal Visionism is worse than Arminianism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes I do,, unequivocally. However,,and unfortunately,, some will not accept it. Some will side with Satan in his rebellion.
> (this is a great sadness)
> But is is a free gift offered to all.
> 
> From Adam to that last human ever born.


If God is saddened by the fact that some reject his free gift, why didn't he just create people that wouldn't reject his free gift?  




> Once again, you are trying to separate belief from works, which John doesn't do in his Gospel. I've already shown you where Jesus tells His disciples that to believe in Him is to do the work of God, in John 6:29. So John is showing us that belief is linked to works.
> 
> I know why you're trying to do that, though. You keep assuming that "justification by faith alone" applies to any mention of works in John's Gospel, but that just begs the question, FreedomFanatic. Nowhere in the book of John is the theme of (forensic) justification the main focus of the Gospel.
> 
> Even your citation of John 3:18 doesn't support your claim that John 3:16-18 is focusing on "justification by faith" as opposed to works. When we read the context of that passage, we notice that in John 3:19-21 it says:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus specifically says that "he who does truth comes to the light." Once again, it is the language of works. And it is the light which shows that those works are good because they are "wrought in God" (compare that phrasing to Matthew 5:16). So, my point is "justification by faith alone" is not the main theme of John's Gospel, so it should not be assumed to be. Just let the text speak on its own.


Who can do truth?  Those who believe the gospel.  Duh.  This is plainly clear.  Of COURSE the Bible talks about works.  But that doesn't mean works save.  And the passage does not say so.  Also, see Romans 4:5.

----------


## Dr.3D

I think the whole idea is to let people choose between good and evil.   If they didn't have a choice in the matter, they couldn't be held responsible for anything they did.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It seems like if he wanted perfect people he would have made us perfect.  So maybe God doesn't want perfection?


That or He prefers truly unique (even if flawed) souls to _grow into_ perfection. (which can only be done in Him, mind you)

Perhaps the creation of perfected _individuals_ (as opposed to perfected automatons) requires the flawing and redeeming process to work, in order for these persons to attain that perfection while retaining their individual nature.  Perhaps _without_ the flawing and redeeming process we tend to lose much or most of our individual nature, and God is just bored with potted plants (angels) and seeks unique individuals (us).

----------


## Theocrat

> What on earth is the point of debating a baptismal regenerationist on whether universal atonement is a damnable heresy or not?  Federal Visionism is worse than Arminianism.


I'd rather that you called me a Christian who holds to "baptismal regeneration" (properly qualified, of course) than to just stick a label of "baptismal regenerationist" on me because "baptismal regeneration" can mean a few things, depending on who is defining those terms, FreedomFanatic.

Also, when you say that "Federal Visionism" is worse than Arminianism, you have now introduced two issues that become problems in making your judgment true:
What in "Federal Vision theology" are you referring to that makes it "worse than Arminianism"?You seem to be implying that proponents of "Federal Vision" and Arminians are not Christians, which, of course, is a very dangerous charge, given the fact that you have not shown that you know what "Federal Vision" is truly about, from the original sources. For all you know, "Federal Vision" could be affirming historical, Biblical truths, but in a more sophisticated and robust way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'd rather that you called me a Christian who holds to "baptismal regeneration" (properly qualified, of course) than to just stick a label of "baptismal regenerationist" on me because "baptismal regeneration" can mean a few things, depending on who is defining those terms, FreedomFanatic.


I'm sorry, but I cannot refer to you as a Christian at present because of your theology.  Baptismal regeneration is heretical in any form.



> Also, when you say that "Federal Visionism" is worse than Arminianism, you have now introduced two issues that become problems in making your judgment true:
> What in "Federal Vision theology" are you referring to that makes it "worse than Arminianism"?



Baptismal regeneration is more than enough by itself.




> You seem to be implying that proponents of "Federal Vision" and Arminians are not Christians, which, of course, is a very dangerous charge, given the fact that you have not shown that you know what "Federal Vision" is truly about, from the original sources. For all you know, "Federal Vision" could be affirming historical, Biblical truths, but in a more sophisticated and robust way.


No, I'm not saying that Arminians are not Christians.  I wouldn't make that blanket statement without a significant amount of defining of terms beforehand.  I am saying that everyone who believes in baptismal regeneration is non-Christian however.

----------


## Theocrat

> Who can do truth?  Those who believe the gospel.  Duh.  This is plainly clear.  Of COURSE the Bible talks about works.  But that doesn't mean works save.  And the passage does not say so.  Also, see Romans 4:5.


We're not discussing salvation, FF. We were talking about whether the Gospels emphasize "justification by faith alone," and you cited one passage, which I showed had nothing to do with justification. So, let's just stick to the topic.

----------


## Theocrat

> I'm sorry, but I cannot refer to you as a Christian at present because of your theology.  Baptismal regeneration is heretical in any form.
> [/LIST]
> Baptismal regeneration is more than enough by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not saying that Arminians are not Christians.  I wouldn't make that blanket statement without a significant amount of defining of terms beforehand.  I am saying that everyone who believes in baptismal regeneration is non-Christian however.


And, you're wrong about that, FreedomFanatic. Clearly, I am a Christian, and yet, I hold to baptismal regeneration (properly qualified). Your arbitrarily saying that baptismal regeneration doesn't make one a Christian doesn't prove anything. It's just your opinion. Besides that, I haven't seen any Biblical evidence from you that proves that my position on baptism is, as you call it, heretical.

----------


## acptulsa

> If God is saddened by the fact that some reject his free gift, why didn't he just create people that wouldn't reject his free gift?





> I'm sorry, but I cannot refer to you as a Christian at present because of your theology.


And shall I say you aren't a Christian because you question God?  Has the Potter no hands?

Why did God create people who wouldn't accept this gift?  To help the rest of us build character?  To try our souls because what doesn't kill us makes us stronger?  Because he could?

I don't know.

And you don't either.

Do you?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And, you're wrong about that, FreedomFanatic. Clearly, I am a Christian, and yet, I hold to baptismal regeneration (properly qualified).


A Mormon could say the same thing about polytheism.  Or a Jehovah's Witness about unitarianism.  So what?  Simply making the claim doesn't make it true.  I've given you all the proof you need, Theocrat.  You just don't want to hear it.



> Your arbitrarily saying that baptismal regeneration doesn't make one a Christian doesn't prove anything. It's just your opinion. Besides that, I haven't seen any Biblical evidence from you that proves that my position on baptism is, as you call it, heretical.


I've presented evidence.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And shall I say you aren't a Christian because you question God?  Has the Potter no hands?
> 
> Why did God create people who wouldn't accept this gift?  To help the rest of us build character?  To try our souls because what doesn't kill us makes us stronger?  Because he could?
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> And you don't either.
> 
> Do you?


I wasn't questioning God.  I believe God created some people to believe and be saved and others for destruction.  Its pcosmar (and many others here, I don't mean this personally) that have an irrational perception of God that I am challenging.  Free will is illogical.

----------


## acptulsa

> I wasn't questioning God.


Perhaps you think not...




> Free will is illogical.


God knows that's pretty much universally true.  But that a thing lacks logic--or that mere mortal minds can't see the logic--does not prove the thing doesn't exist.

----------


## Theocrat

> A Mormon could say the same thing about polytheism.  Or a Jehovah's Witness about unitarianism.  So what?  Simply making the claim doesn't make it true.  I've given you all the proof you need, Theocrat.  You just don't want to hear it.
> 
> 
> I've presented evidence.


Comparing polytheism to my view of baptismal regeneration and unitarianism to my view of baptismal regeneration commits the logical fallacy of a False Analogy, FF. You're arguing against two different things. Now, if I rejected that God was the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, three persons in one Godhead, then your comparisons would be sound. But they are not.

And, just for the record, you haven't given proof of anything, FreedomFanatic. To be quite frank about it, anytime you give me a rebuttal, it is usually one or two passages cited, or a few sentences (without passages cited) without critical, expositional consideration of context, original language, nor audience. Most of your "proofs" are nothing more than *quick soundbites* that prove nothing against the case. Yet, you think that settles the issue once and for all. It doesn't, and it just shows intellectual laziness on your part, my brother.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And, you're wrong about that, FreedomFanatic. Clearly, I am a Christian, and yet, I hold to baptismal regeneration (properly qualified). Your arbitrarily saying that baptismal regeneration doesn't make one a Christian doesn't prove anything. It's just your opinion. Besides that, I haven't seen any Biblical evidence from you that proves that my position on baptism is, as you call it, heretical.




Saying that baptism is required for salvation is a damnable heresy.  This is how Paul dealt with a group of people that said a religious ritual was required for salvation:




> *Galatians 5:2-4 
> 
> Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.  
> 
> Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 
> 
> You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.*

----------


## juleswin

I don't know what the thread is talking about and I am not sure I want to know. But with 1200 replies and almost 16k views in a little over a week, you have to give it to Sola fide for bring up topics that lots of people on RPF want to talk about. Yes, she is is controversial but also bring up thought provoking topics.

Here's to you Sola fide

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't know what the thread is talking about and I am not sure I want to know. But with 1200 replies and almost 16k views in a little over a week, you have to give it to Sola fide for bring up topics that lots of people on RPF want to talk about. Yes, she is is controversial but also bring up thought provoking topics.
> 
> Here's to you Sola fide


Thank you.  I'm a he.

But yes, thank you, I thank the Lord that so many here on this website are hearing for the first time what the gospel of free grace is.

----------


## Theocrat

> Saying that baptism is required for salvation is a damnable heresy.  This is how Paul dealt with a group of people that said a religious ritual was required for salvation:


The problem with using Galatians 5 to prove the "heresy" of baptismal regeneration is that there are other passages in Scripture that you've ignored (besides your being ignorant of the context of the Galatians 5 chapter, anyway).

What about these passages, Sola?




> *He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved*, but he that believeth not shall be damned. [Mark 16:16 - emphasis mine]





> Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and *be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,* and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." [Acts 2:38 - emphasis mine]





> And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me and stood and said unto me, "Brother Saul, receive thy sight." And the same hour I looked up upon him.
> 
> And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know His will and see That Just One and shouldest hear the voice of His mouth, for thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and *be baptized, and wash away thy sins,* calling on the name of the Lord. [Acts 22:12-16 - emphasis mine]





> For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, *when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ*, Who is gone into heaven and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him. [1 Peter 3:18-22 - emphasis mine]


Galatians 5 is not at odds with those passages, Sola. What you seem to not understand is that *the whole book of Galatians* is about the justified people of God in Christ outside of the Old Covenant laws that made one a Jew because that covenant was passing away, so that there would be one distinct group of people unto God, those who are in Christ. The Galatians 5 passage must be understood in that context, and when it is, you will see that Paul is not refuting the idea that baptism brings about new life.

So, was Peter a heretic for saying that baptism saves us, or for calling people to be baptized for the remission of sins? Or how about that "heretic" who told Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins? Can we, as Christians, speak like the apostles spoke in God's word, using their language without being called a heretic, Sola?

----------


## VIDEODROME

WTF everyone that was circumcised is going to Hell?

----------


## Dr.3D

> WTF everyone that was circumcised is going to Hell?


Only if they  believe that circumcision of the flesh is what's going to save them.

----------


## otherone

> Only if they  believe that circumcision of the flesh is what's going to save them.


Yes.  God is more interested in your spiritual foreskin.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I dunno, if your religion is too busy worrying about _who isn't_ a Christian to go out and draw souls into Christ (and the Truth), then you may need to reexamine some of your premises.  We ought to worry about shining _our own_ lights in God and watching the grass grow up in that light, and less worried about shooting out the neighbors lights out of some prideful jealousy. _If our own light is true,_ then what does it matter what the neighbor does? If _their_ light is false, then their crops will fail, and true seekers will not be drawn.

You do not go in to the Kingdom, you admit that you may yet have been made for dishonor (which itself reveals a _temporal_ origin of thought), and while afraid to enter yourselves you _bar the door for everyone else_ who is expanding up into the eternal realm.

"You are not allowed to know _my_ God, because you have described the elephant's leg rather than it's ear." It is not your doctrines that condemn you, but your use of them as a weapon to kill those with whom you disagree.  Every time God has to step in to correct you lot, it is to take the death _OUT_ of the Word, that you people keep pushing back into it.  How can you not see what it happening here?

Moses wrote down the Law, which was from day 1 intended as a light upon the path and not a weapon of death.  Nevertheless Israel by the Pharisees burdened the Law with the death of man, also drawing hedges around some carefully and requiring the condemnation of every soul, demonstrating the redemption, and creating a free Kingdom under God.

Now, when John the Baptist came preaching, they had taken the Law of Life and turned it into a weapon of death, and an instrument of tyranny.  Jesus Christ came, and among may other things restored the Law to Life in His own self, and removed from it the sting of death.

It was...inevitable then that ultimately a new breed of pharisee would come around having converted now even the Gospel into a new weapon of death, a _new_ instrument of tyranny.  This is the pattern that emerges through history.  Men have corrupted the light of God to use as a weapon against others, to harm, maim, and slay.  Rejecting the life in the Word they have used it to deal death, to own, dominate, and control.  At very the height of this struggle in steps God and sets forth the Truth.  Moses on the Mountain receiving the Law, the Messiah delivering the Sermon on the Mount. 

The rise of extraordinary legalism, often signifies the onset of a major revelation.  The adversary is trying to carve as many away from the impending witness as possible.

The Law of God is LIFE.  Even as a sword, cutting to the marrow, it is LIFE.  

It has been the practice of evildoers and tyrants throughout time, to take up the revelation of God and use it as an instrument of death and control against their enemies.  Just remember, the Lord can speak to a tree and it wither to death; speaking into and out of existence all things at will.  The general revelation is *always* about the Way of Life, and in particular the Gospel of God.

Those, having taken _the Gospel itself_ and converted it from a platform of life into an instrument of death, continue in the tradition of the scribes and the Pharisees who would load the Law with additional burdens of death, and use that power over death to tyrannize the people according to their will.

It ought to be common understanding amongst all those who have come to an actual relationship with Christ, that the Gospel was not made to _slay_ believers, but to _edify them_ and _build them up_ into the perfection of their salvation.  Those who come to you using the Gospel as a spear to kill and to slay, they are doing the work of the Adversary, as has been the practice now for 6000 years.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Yes.  God is more interested in your spiritual foreskin.


If you get to Heaven, do you get your foreskin back?

----------


## otherone

> If you get to Heaven, do you get your foreskin back?


....hopefully the right one...

----------


## Dr.3D

> If you get to Heaven, do you get your foreskin back?


What makes you think you would even have a penis?   Since there would be no need for reproduction, I seriously doubt we will have sex organs.

----------


## VIDEODROME

What are people going to do for Eternity then?

----------


## Dr.3D

> What are people going to do for Eternity then?


Worship God.

----------


## otherone

> What makes you think you would even have a penis?   Since there would be no need for reproduction, I seriously doubt we will have sex organs.


...or legs, for that matter, when we've got wings.  Or colons....do they have toilets in heaven?

----------


## moostraks

> I dunno, if your religion is too busy worrying about _who isn't_ a Christian to go out and draw souls into Christ (and the Truth), then you may need to reexamine some of your premises.  We ought to worry about shining _our own_ lights in God and watching the grass grow up in that light, and less worried about shooting out the neighbors lights out of some prideful jealousy. _If our own light is true,_ then what does it matter what the neighbor does? If _their_ light is false, then their crops will fail, and true seekers will not be drawn.
> 
> You do not go in to the Kingdom, you admit that you may yet have been made for dishonor (which itself reveals a _temporal_ origin of thought), and while afraid to enter yourselves you _bar the door for everyone else_ who is expanding up into the eternal realm.
> 
> "You are not allowed to know _my_ God, because you have described the elephant's leg rather than it's ear." It is not your doctrines that condemn you, but your use of them as a weapon to kill those with whom you disagree.  Every time God has to step in to correct you lot, it is to take the death _OUT_ of the Word, that you people keep pushing back into it.  How can you not see what it happening here?
> 
> Moses wrote down the Law, which was from day 1 intended as a light upon the path and not a weapon of death.  Nevertheless Israel by the Pharisees burdened the Law with the death of man, also drawing hedges around some carefully and requiring the condemnation of every soul, demonstrating the redemption, and creating a free Kingdom under God.
> 
> Now, when John the Baptist came preaching, they had taken the Law of Life and turned it into a weapon of death, and an instrument of tyranny.  Jesus Christ came, and among may other things restored the Law to Life in His own self, and removed from it the sting of death.
> ...


Beautiful post!!!

----------


## Dr.3D

> ...or legs, for that matter, when we've got wings.  Or colons....do they have toilets in heaven?


Why would you have wings?   It's not like we turn into angels or something.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Worship God.


That sounds boring.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> ...or legs, for that matter, when we've got wings.  Or colons....do they have toilets in heaven?


Do they have a buffet?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Do they have a buffet?


Don't you know, it's harder for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle?

We will just have to wait and see if Warren makes it.

----------


## otherone

> Don't you know, it's harder for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle?
> 
> We will just have to wait and see if Warren makes it.


LOL.
Now I was going to compare heaven to Margaritaville...

----------


## TER

> Saying that baptism is required for salvation is a damnable heresy.  This is how Paul dealt with a group of people that said a religious ritual was required for salvation:


St. Paul was discussing one specific ritual, namely circumcision. He was not making a blanket statement to include baptism.  You like to make a habit of taking one verse, confabulating it to mean things it was never meant or interpreted to mean, and then ignore all the other verses which completely contradict your confabulation.   Why don't you consider for one second that maybe it is _you_ who have the incorrect understanding and the 2000 years of Christian witnesses before you might have the right one?  It is not that hard, it only requires a little dose of humility.  Seriously Sola, pick up St. Basil's 'On the Holy Spirit' and see if maybe you might learn something.  Theo is not scared to, and that is why he is growing closer to the truth.  You should stop being so stubborn in your pride thinking that you know above everyone else what the gospel is.  There is a whole treasure of beauty and wisdom you are missing out on so that you can convince yourself and others you have the right answers.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> LOL.
> Now I was going to compare heaven to Margaritaville...


I was thinking Golden Corral.  

hmmm.....  or how about IHOP?  Endless Pancakes and Coffee!!!

----------


## Terry1

> ...or legs, for that matter, when we've got wings.  Or colons....do they have toilets in heaven?


And you always thought that was snow you were eating that fell from the sky.

----------


## Terry1

> Why would you have wings?   It's not like we turn into angels or something.


Genesis tells us that the angels mated with human women that created the giants.  I don't believe we have any idea what it or we will be like--we can only guess in this life.

----------


## robert68

..

----------


## GunnyFreedom

While I would never say that:


> Saying that baptism is required for salvation is a damnable heresy.


I will say that it is certainly an error, and that this specific error _can_ lead to damnable heresy.  I have seen it first hand in "Oneness Pentecostalism."  I actually watched the five people who 'developed' this denomination form, and they actually first came together around the idea that if you did not receive a physical baptism then you were guaranteed damned to Hell no matter what.

The physical baptism is a physical recognition of a new spiritual reality; and the physical baptism is HUGELY important because it works to tie your new Spiritual reality back to the old physical world, and returns you to is a New Creature. It can not, in and of itself be determinative of salvation, lest you call Christ Himself a liar to the thief on the Cross. (John had been baptizing for YEARS at this point.)

Baptism can be evidence of salvation, for who being saved would not want to be baptized? The lack of baptism cannot be evidence however for the lack of salvation, since there are a million factors that you just don't know about.  What if a soul is saved on the ISS and it falls out of orbit? The laws of God are not 'variable.' God does not make exceptions.  His Laws are like the physical laws of nature.  They just ARE.  If the astronaut in the ISS can be saved without a baptism, then so can the homeless guy in Seattle.  If the man actually took Christ, he will _want_ to be baptized if and when possible.  If years go by and it still never happens, he will lack a certain grounding, but not the actual condition of salvation itself.

_Baptism is critically important._  However, it's _lack_ does not prevent the condition of salvation.  Nothing in this temporal universe can.  That is kind of the point.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And shall I say you aren't a Christian because you question God?  Has the Potter no hands?
> 
> Why did God create people who wouldn't accept this gift?  To help the rest of us build character?  To try our souls because what doesn't kill us makes us stronger?  Because he could?
> 
> *I don't know.
> 
> And you don't either.
> 
> Do you*?


You don't know, but I do know, because the Bible explains why God created pots for destruction:




> *Romans 9:21-24
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
> 
> What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 
> 
> What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?*


God created pots for destruction so that the objects of His mercy would truly understand the riches of God's glory.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You don't know, but I do know, because the Bible explains why God created pots for destruction:
> 
> God created pots for destruction so that the objects of His mercy would truly understand the riches of God's glory.


_Which_ pots, do you suppose, are the ones that has God made for destruction?  Are they the ones who _mourn_ over the destruction of another soul, or are they the ones who _hunger_ after their next victim?

----------


## pcosmar

> You don't know, but I do know, because the Bible explains why God created pots for destruction:


Not in those verses..
Those verses do NOT make statements,, they ask questions.




> Does not the potter have the right ?


Yes he has a right.



> What if God, ?


What IF?



> What if he did this ?


What if?
Well he certainly could have,, but it does not say that he does,, 
It asks the question "could he have?"

Did God destroy Job's crops and kill his children to test him? 
Well he could have.. and he allowed Satan to do that..

But did God destroy those pots?
Tell me,, Did God incite David to number the people?  or did Satan incite David to Number the people?

and remember,, the Book Balances itself.

----------


## Terry1

> You don't know, but I do know, because the Bible explains why God created pots for destruction:
> 
> 
> 
> God created pots for destruction so that the objects of His mercy would truly understand the riches of God's glory.


The pots and the clay are people--mankind.  Those made for destruction are simply made so by their own choosing and God foreknowing them and what they would choose.  He then either makes them pots of mercy or destruction based upon what they chose in life and whom they chose to serve.  It's as simple as that.  We choose our own eternal destinies by whom we choose to serve in this life.  God foreknows some will never come to Him--this is why He'll simply harden their hearts further to fulfill His plan however He sees fit.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not in those verses..
> Those verses do NOT make statements,, they ask questions.
> 
> 
> Yes he has a right.
> 
> What IF?
> 
> What if?
> ...


Paul asks questions,  yes, but he answers his questions with verses from the Old Testament that prove only the remnant will be saved:




> Romans 9:21-29 NIV
> 
> Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?   What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathprepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 
> 
> *As he says in Hosea: I will call them my people who are not my people; and I will call her my loved one who is not my loved one,    and, In the very place where it was said to them, You are not my people, there they will be called children of the living God.     
> 
> Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.   For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.    
> 
> It is just as Isaiah said previously: Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.*

----------


## Dr.3D

> Genesis tells us that the angels mated with human women that created the giants.  I don't believe we have any idea what it or we will be like--we can only guess in this life.


Jesus said people will not be given in marriage, but be like angels in heaven.  

What those fallen angels did is of no consequence.




> *Mark 12:20-25*  There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children;  21 and the second married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise;  22 none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died.  23 In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her."  24 Jesus said to them, "Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?  25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. _NRS_

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Jesus said people will not be given in marriage, but be like angels in heaven.  
> 
> What those fallen angels did is of no consequence.


Unless you count the great flood of Noah as a consequence.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Unless you count the great flood of Noah as a consequence.


Well, the subject was "Are resurrected people in heaven, capable of sexual reproduction?"   That's the consequence I was referring to.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well, the subject was "Are resurrected people in heaven, capable of sexual reproduction?"   That's the consequence I was referring to.


I don't think that's actually addressed either way.  I mean, logically it doesn't make a lot of sense that there would be reproduction in the Eternal realm, but _the only revelation_ we actually get is that we will not "marry nor be given to marriage."  We do know that angels were able to reproduce _within the temporal realm_ (Earth), producing the Nephilim.  I don't think it's any safer to presume that we _won't_ be sexual beings in heaven as it would be to presume that we _will_.  I do not foresee reproduction in the eternal realm any more than you do, but I also do not see that specific issue addressed in scripture, either.  Only the issue of marriage itself, and in context, that issue narrowly.  So I can _speculate_ that we may retain _something_ of a sexual nature, while reproduction in Eternity seems extraordinarily doubtful; but I would avoid speaking to that subject as knowledge without receiving something on the order of a direct revelation to edify such knowledge.

----------


## TER

> Well, the subject was "Are resurrected people in heaven, capable of sexual reproduction?"   That's the consequence I was referring to.


There is no consensus on this amongst the Fathers.  There certainly aren't any doctrinal statements on this in the Orthodox Church.  In fact, there are relatively few doctrinal statements made by the Church!  I think the 'official' stance would be closest to it being a mystery and that we simply won't know for sure until that day arrives.

----------


## Dr.3D

> There is no consensus on this amongst the Fathers.  There certainly aren't any doctrinal statements on this in the Orthodox Church.  In fact, there are relatively few doctrinal statements made by the Church!  I think the 'official' stance would be closest to it being a mystery and that we simply won't know for sure until that day arrives.


What a about Mark 12:20-25?

----------


## TER

> What a about Mark 12:20-25?


Good question!  This mysterious verse doesn't positively say whether we will have sexual organs or not.  For example, monastics live a life of celibacy, some have reached heights by the grace of God that there remains no trace of sexual lust in their hearts.  They live as eunuchs even though they physically are whole.  

But your point is well made, and for this reason there are some Church Fathers who speak about our resurrected bodies lacking such organs for reproduction, while others theorizing that we will be whole as now yet without the passion of lust.  There are varying opinion on the matter, and this is one of the reasons why no doctrinal statement has ever been made about it in the history of the Church.

----------


## acptulsa

> They live as eunuchs even though they physically are whole.


I'm surprised to see you talk this way, TER.  You usually show such a strong grasp of ancient history!

Eunuchs really lived, TER.  Just because they couldn't impregnate doesn't mean they couldn't try.  They weren't there just to guard the harem, they were there to try to keep the harem satisfied.

----------


## Dr.3D

Well, next time somebody asks if we get our foreskin back when we get to heaven, I'll just tell them "the Church hasn't made up it's mind on that one yet."

----------


## acptulsa

> Well, next time somebody asks if we get our foreskin back when we get to heaven, I'll just tell them "the Church hasn't made up it's mind on that one yet."




Remember, Thomas Jefferson considered the Fifth Amendment a self-evident, God-given right.

----------


## TER

> I'm surprised to see you talk this way, TER.  You usually show such a strong grasp of ancient history!
> 
> Eunuchs really lived, TER.  Just because they couldn't impregnate doesn't mean they couldn't try.  They weren't there just to guard the harem, they were there to try to keep the harem satisfied.


 I know they were real!  I honestly didn't know they were to sexually satisfy the harem.    I was trying to make the point that just because monks or virgins have sexual organs doesn't mean they have lust in their hearts.  Look at little children, they have genitals, but they in their innocence do not have sexual lust (no matter what Freud says!). Perhaps in Heaven we lack androgens and are like little children when it comes to our genitals.

----------


## otherone

> I'm surprised to see you talk this way, TER.  You usually show such a strong grasp of ancient history!
> 
> Eunuchs really lived, TER.  Just because they couldn't impregnate doesn't mean they couldn't try.  They weren't there just to guard the harem, they were there to try to keep the harem satisfied.


source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I know they were real!  I honestly didn't know they were to sexually satisfy the harem.


Everyone knows Colonel Angus

----------


## TER

> Well, next time somebody asks if we get our foreskin back when we get to heaven, I'll just tell them "the Church hasn't made up it's mind on that one yet."


 the better answer (in fact, the answer you would get from the regular Orthodox Christian) would be, 'This is a mystery, we simply do not know.  Neither will we spend too much time guessing on something which has not been clearly revealed, yet.'

----------


## TER

> source?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch


That is how I always understood them to be.

----------


## Dr.3D

> the better answer (in fact, the answer you would get from the regular Orthodox Christian) would be, 'This is a mystery, we simply do not know.  Neither will we spend too much time guessing on something which has not been clearly revealed, yet.'


Better yet, I'll just stay out of that forum and let the experts handle such questions.

----------


## TER

> Better yet, I'll just stay out of that forum and let the experts handle such questions.





> the better answer (in fact, the answer you would get from the regular Orthodox Christian) would be, 'This is a mystery, we simply do not know.  Neither will we spend too much time guessing on something which has not been clearly revealed, yet.'


I am happy we have the same answer.

----------


## Terry1

So much has been lost to so many because the book of Enoch was rejected and buried.  Even though the word tells us that we will not marry or be given in marriage--that does not indicate that we won't have reproductive organs.  It is all unclear at this time and we only have the ancient texts to help us piece the puzzle together.

The word also tells us that we will be "like the angels of God"--this could mean in our "perfected resurrected bodies", *Matthew  22: 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven*

The "Watchers" or the "sons of God"--as those chief angels were called at the time--we're able to impregnate human women.  The Watchers consisted of many holy angels sent to watch over mankind, as the book of Enoch records some 200 with the leaders over them.

Book of Enoch  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watcher_(angel)

In the Book of Enoch, the Watchers (Aramaic. עִירִין, iyrin), are angels dispatched to Earth to watch over the humans. They soon begin to lust for human women and, at the prodding of their leader Samyaza, defect en masse to illicitly instruct humanity and procreate among them. The offspring of these unions are the Nephilim, savage giants who pillage the earth and endanger humanity. Samyaza and his associates further taught their human charges arts and technologies such as weaponry, cosmetics, mirrors, sorcery, and other techniques that would otherwise be discovered gradually over time by humans, not foisted upon them all at once. Eventually God allows a Great Flood to rid the earth of the Nephilim, but first sends Uriel to warn Noah so as not to eradicate the human race. The Watchers are bound "in the valleys of the Earth" until Judgment Day. (*Jude verse 6 says that these fallen angels are kept "in everlasting chains under darkness" until Judgement Day.)
*
The chiefs of tens, listed in the Book of Enoch, are as follows:


7. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. 8. These are their chiefs of tens.

—R. H. Charles translation, The Book of the Watchers, Chapter VI.

The book of Enoch also lists leaders of the 200 fallen angels who married and commenced in unnatural union with human women, and who taught forbidden knowledge. Some are also listed in Book of Raziel (Sefer Raziel HaMalakh), the Zohar, and Jubilees.
Araqiel (also Arakiel, Araqael, Araciel, Arqael, Sarquael, Arkiel, Arkas) taught humans the signs of the earth. However, in the Sibylline Oracles, Araqiel is referred to not as a fallen angel, or Watcher, but as one of the 5 angels who lead the souls of men to judgement, the other 4 being Ramiel, Uriel, Samiel, and Azazel.
Armaros (also Amaros) in Enoch I taught men the resolving of enchantments.
Azazel taught men to make knives, swords, shields, and how to devise ornaments and cosmetics.
Gadreel (or Gader'el) taught the art of cosmetics, the use of weapons and killing blows. It was he who led Eve astray in the garden of eden.[citation needed]
Baraqel (Baraqiel) taught men astrology
Bezaliel mentioned in Enoch I, left out of most translations because of damaged manuscripts and problematic transmission of the text.
Chazaqiel (sometimes Ezeqeel or Cambriel) taught men the signs of the clouds (meteorology).
Kokabiel (also Kakabel, Kochbiel, Kokbiel, Kabaiel, and Kochab), In the Book of Raziel he is a high-ranking, holy angel. In Enoch I, he is a fallen Watcher, resident of the nether realms, and commands 365,000 surrogate spirits to do his bidding. Among other duties, he instructs his fellows in astrology.
Penemue "taught mankind the art of writing with ink and paper," and taught "the children of men the bitter and the sweet and the secrets of wisdom." (I Enoch 69.8)
Sariel (also Suriel) taught mankind about the courses of the moon (at one time regarded as forbidden knowledge).
Samyaza (also Shemyazaz, Shamazya, Semiaza, Shemhazi, Semyaza and Amezyarak) is one of the leaders of the fall from heaven in Vocabulaire de l' Angelologie.
Shamsiel, once a guardian of Eden as stated in the Zohar, served as one of the two chief aides to the archangel Uriel (the other aide being Hasdiel) when Uriel bore his standard into battle, and is the head of 365 legions of angels and also crowns prayers, accompanying them to the 5th heaven. In Jubilees, he is referred to as one of the Watchers. He is a fallen angel who teaches the signs of the sun.
Yeqon (also Jeqon or Yaqum, יָקוּם, "he shall rise") was the ringleader who first tempted the other Watchers into having sexual relations with humans. His accomplices were Asbeel, Gadreel, Penemue, and Kasdaye (or Kasadya), who were all identified as individual "satans".

The account of the Book of *Enoch has been associated with the passage in Genesis 6:1-4, which speaks of Sons of God instead of Watchers:

*
When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose. Then the Lord said: "My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years." At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of God had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

What about those that god created without hands?  Do they not have representation with him?  I've seen some pretty good stuff from even quadriplegics.

_edit: I know, I'm getting all technical.  But, isn't nature a picture or representative of god's work?_

----------


## Terry1

> What about those that god created without hands?  Do they not have representation with him?  I've seen some pretty good stuff from even quadriplegics.
> 
> _edit: I know, I'm getting all technical.  But, isn't nature a picture or representative of god's work?_


People are born with all kinds of physical and mental defects due to a number of reasons.  Their bodies will be perfected upon their resurrection in heaven.  I watched a documentary on a Christian program once that no one could doubt or dispute.  A boy born with no brain or very little was adopted by a Christian woman--he couldn't walk, talk or anything.  He was an empty shell as far as most were concerned.  She actually tied him to her own body and would walk with him attached to her.  

This boy's brain actually began to grow back and he became a concert pianist.  True story and miracles like this still happen every day.  Just because we're not aware of these miracles all of the time doesn't mean they're not happening every day somewhere in this world.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What about those that god created without hands?  Do they not have representation with him?  I've seen some pretty good stuff from even quadriplegics.
> 
> _edit: I know, I'm getting all technical.  But, isn't nature a picture or representative of god's work?_


The issue isn't about literally not having physical hands (God saves all types of people, which would include quadriplegics or any other group that you can think of.)  No, the Bible isn't condemning or making fun of people who literally lack hands.  The issue is over the sovereignty of God, the potter.  The Bible is condemning people who say "the potter has no hands", meaning... those who deny God's sovereignty.  Now, I'm not sure exactly where the line is between having a weak understanding of God's sovereignty and saying "the potter has no hands."  I  do believe that line exists somewhere, and I'm not as strict in drawing it as Sola is.  But regardless, that's ultimately the issue.  Its not about literally lacking limbs.

Those Arminians who say they would not worship God if predestination and election were true are certainly saying "the potter has no hands."  I know people like this and I do not believe such people are saved, because they are creating a god in their own image according to their own whims.  I'm more patient with those who are still searching the scriptures and who are willing to bow down to the sovereign Lord of scripture  (For what its worth, I don't even say that I wouldn't worship God if Arminianism were true... I don't believe that it is but I don't get to decide what God I want to worship, I worship the God who is.)  yet don't fully understand what that entails (hey, do any of us?)

----------


## VIDEODROME

So individuals have the means to control whether God saves them?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So individuals have the means to control whether God saves them?


No.  Where did you get that idea?

Discerning whether God has actually saved a man based on his beliefs is not the same thing as saying man saves himself by his beliefs.  This is like saying that if we judge everyone with no symptoms of smallpox as not having smallpox, that one can control whether he has smallpox or not.  It doesn't work.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Uh....  so maybe people who choose God don't really choose God?  They just think they do, but in fact is God making them do it?

----------


## Deborah K

> People are born with all kinds of physical and mental defects due to a number of reasons.  Their bodies will be perfected upon their resurrection in heaven.  I watched a documentary on a Christian program once that no one could doubt or dispute.  A boy born with no brain or very little was adopted by a Christian woman--he couldn't walk, talk or anything.  He was an empty shell as far as most were concerned.  She actually tied him to her own body and would walk with him attached to her.  
> 
> This boy's brain actually began to grow back and he became a concert pianist.  True story and miracles like this still happen every day.  Just because we're not aware of these miracles all of the time doesn't mean they're not happening every day somewhere in this world.


But....but...this mentality just doesn't work in our "throw away" society.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Uh....  so maybe people who choose God don't really choose God?  They just think they do, but in fact is God making them do it?


Nobody chooses God.   Even those who think they do don't.  God chooses his people.  That was the point of the OP.

----------


## pcosmar

> Uh....  so maybe people who choose God don't really choose God?  They just think they do, but in fact is God making them do it?


Were that so he would be unjust.

I do not believe him to be unjust.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Were that so he would be unjust.
> 
> I do not believe him to be unjust.


When your opinion DIRECTLY conflicts with the Scripture, then you know you have a real problem.  God is not unjust to choose whom He will:




> * Romans 9:12-16 
> 
> Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
> 
> What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
> 
> “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
>     and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
> 
> It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.*


Salvation is taken completely out of the realm of man's effort.  It does not depend on man's effort but on God's mercy.  This is the JUST thing to do, because if salvation was dependent on man's effort, none of us could be saved.  We do not have the righteousness needed to stand in the presence of God.

----------


## Terry1

> But....but...this mentality just doesn't work in our "throw away" society.


True, these kinds of people are useless to secular society because they're unable to produce and contribute to it.  But they also exist like Jesus said the poor who would always be with us and are here for a purpose as well.  I believe the poor, needy and disabled serve as the means by which we're called to help.  The love we have for God is revealed in the way we care for those who need us.

----------


## pcosmar

> Or say a spontaneous organic flash mob as inspired by the Holy Spirit.


Interesting perspective.. might have to chew on that a bit.  

He has slowed the sun in the past,, so altering Perception of time,,  Folks have been taken from place to place in a moment of time.

Thought I have generally seen time as linear,, as opposed to eternity..which strikes me as more fluid.

----------


## pcosmar

> Salvation is taken completely out of the realm of man's effort.  It does not depend on man's effort but on God's mercy.  This is the JUST thing to do, because if salvation was dependent on man's effort, none of us could be saved.  We do not have the righteousness needed to stand in the presence of God.


I do not disagree with that.. any of that..

You are looking for disagreements where there are few.  The only real difference of opinion (and we will know when we see Him) Is whether there is any free will,, or if we are nothing but puppets on strings.

I believe that Free Will was the Main reason for creation. You apparently do not.

----------


## jmdrake

> I do not disagree with that.. any of that..
> 
> You are looking for disagreements where there are few.  The only real difference of opinion (and we will know when we see Him) Is whether there is any free will,, or if we are nothing but puppets on strings.
> 
> I believe that Free Will was the Main reason for creation. You apparently do not.


^Endless hours of often rankerous debate beautifully and succinctly summed up.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I do not disagree with that.. any of that..
> 
> You are looking for disagreements where there are few.  The only real difference of opinion (and we will know when we see Him) Is whether there is any free will,, or if we are nothing but puppets on strings.
> 
> I believe that Free Will was the Main reason for creation. You apparently do not.


Yes.  You believe that man's will is the main reason for creation, and the Bible says that God's glory is the main reason for creation.

This is the difference between the man-centered false gospel of free will, and the God centered gospel of sovereign grace that the Bible teaches.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes.  You believe that man's will is the main reason for creation, and the Bible says that God's glory is the main reason for creation.
> 
> This is the difference between the man-centered false gospel of free will, and the God centered gospel of sovereign grace that the Bible teaches.


I've been criticized by Calvinists for answering an unbeliever's question of why God permitted the Fall with "For his glory."  Not because it wasn't true, but because it might seem "selfish" to the unbeliever.  My mentality is that if a person is unwilling to worship God as he is,  were they ever truly converted anyway?  I can't tell you how many foolish Arminians have said to me "I wouldn't worship God if he was like that."  I'm definitely not convinced that those people have ever been converted either.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've been criticized by Calvinists for answering an unbeliever's question of why God permitted the Fall with "For his glory."  Not because it wasn't true, but because it might seem "selfish" to the unbeliever.  My mentality is that if a person is unwilling to worship God as he is,  were they ever truly converted anyway?  I can't tell you how many foolish Arminians have said to me "I wouldn't worship God if he was like that."  I'm definitely not convinced that those people have ever been converted either.


Yes, they haven't been converted.   If a person reads a "difficult" verse in the Bible and says "I can't worship a God like that", they are right.  They can't.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes, they haven't been converted.   If a person reads a "difficult" verse in the Bible and says "I can't worship a God like that", they are right.  They can't.


And you have taken the role of accuser..

I have been warning against such.



> And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accused them before our God day and night.


Check yourself.

----------


## jmdrake

> I've been criticized by Calvinists for answering an unbeliever's question of why God permitted the Fall with "For his glory."  Not because it wasn't true, but because it might seem "selfish" to the unbeliever.  My mentality is that if a person is unwilling to worship God as he is,  were they ever truly converted anyway?  I can't tell you how many foolish Arminians have said to me "I wouldn't worship God if he was like that."  I'm definitely not convinced that those people have ever been converted either.


What's the difference between what you are saying that Arminians do and what you and Sola_Fide do?  Both of you have said more than once that God would not be "just" if He allowed someone to choose to go to hell even after He paid the price for that person to go to heaven.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't criticize others for not being willing to accept God as you present Him if you are not willing to at least consider the possibility of God as they present Him.

----------

