"Reprehensible!" is not an argument

[Luke2427]

It goes like this:

God is not in charge of everything because, if he is, then he intended for terrible things like the acts of Jeffry Dalmer to come to pass.

Enter logic-blinding, Scripture-skewing powerful emotions.

Once you get here it does not matter WHAT the Bible says- you will refuse to accept it because you do not like it.

Once you "feel" so strongly about something, logic is out the window and with it goes truth.

This is how "homosexual Christians" interpret the Scripture. They have extremely powerful feelings about their lifestyle and they CANNOT see the condemnation of homosexuality in the Scriptures. They just cannot IMAGINE a God who would condemn something so sacred to them. So they can't see it.

Some of you CANNOT IMAGINE a God who would will horrible things to come to pass, things that God HATES, so that those things can bring about an infinitely great and holy ETERNAL purpose.


But here's my point.

Saying "You're WRONG!!! God would NEVER ordain such a thing!!! You are EVIL for suggesting that God intended in eternity past for these horrible things to happen!!!" is not an argument.

It is nothing but blind emotion.

The Catholic just can't IMAGINE a God who would not require works in order to save.

It does not matter what the Bible says. The Catholic is already blinded by powerful emotions.

But he cannot argue against it exegetically (from the Scripture). But he does not CARE. HIS GOD would never save anyone without requiring them to do works.


Just because you SAY "God would never..." does not mean that Scripture agrees with you.

And it is not an argument.

It is nothing more than an emotional, unwarranted claim.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Your right but only God can reveal himself to those in rebellion. This thread will just bring about more arguements...but the fact still remains that God is sovereign. Happy New Year!

 

[Luke2427]

Your right but only God can reveal himself to those in rebellion. This thread will just bring about more arguements...but the fact still remains that God is sovereign. Happy New Year!

There are few things in this world more important than arguments.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There are few things in this world more important than arguments.

Yes & getting right with God is #1. Everything else is a conversation.

 

[Luke2427]

It goes like this:

God is not in charge of everything because, if he is, then he intended for terrible things like the acts of Jeffry Dalmer to come to pass.

Enter logic-blinding, Scripture-skewing powerful emotions.

Once you get here it does not matter WHAT the Bible says- you will refuse to accept it because you do not like it.

Once you "feel" so strongly about something, logic is out the window and with it goes truth.

This is how "homosexual Christians" interpret the Scripture. They have extremely powerful feelings about their lifestyle and they CANNOT see the condemnation of homosexuality in the Scriptures. They just cannot IMAGINE a God who would condemn something so sacred to them. So they can't see it.

Some of you CANNOT IMAGINE a God who would will horrible things to come to pass, things that God HATES, so that those things can bring about an infinitely great and holy ETERNAL purpose.


But here's my point.

Saying "You're WRONG!!! God would NEVER ordain such a thing!!! You are EVIL for suggesting that God intended in eternity past for these horrible things to happen!!!" is not an argument.

It is nothing but blind emotion.

The Catholic just can't IMAGINE a God who would not require works in order to save.

It does not matter what the Bible says. The Catholic is already blinded by powerful emotions.

But he cannot argue against it exegetically (from the Scripture). But he does not CARE. HIS GOD would never save anyone without requiring them to do works.


Just because you SAY "God would never..." does not mean that Scripture agrees with you.

And it is not an argument.

It is nothing more than an emotional, unwarranted claim.

This thread answers the "unique work of God" thread.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If its not orthodox...you might as well be a Roman Catholic.

 

[Luke2427]

Most people that are not Calvinists, I think, are not Calvinists, not because they cannot see it taught in the Scripture but because they do not like what they think Calvinism implies about God.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Most people that are not Calvinists, I think, are not Calvinists, not because they cannot see it taught in the Scripture but because they do not like what they think Calvinism implies about God.

And most Calvinists cannot see that the way they present Calvinism makes God a monster and responsible for all the misery and evil in our world. Plus, it is not taught in scripture as it is interpreted in today's modern world.

One of the unique attributes of God is that we can never understand all there is to know or understand. We are not capable of such understanding.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And most Calvinists cannot see that the way they present Calvinism makes God a monster and responsible for all the misery and evil in our world. Plus, it is not taught in scripture as it is interpreted in today's modern world.

One of the unique attributes of God is that we can never understand all there is to know or understand. We are not capable of such understanding.

Monster...:laugh:

 

[Van]

Typical Calvinism defense, attack the messenger!

It goes like this:

God is not in charge of everything because, if he is, then he intended for terrible things like the acts of Jeffry Dalmer to come to pass.

Enter logic-blinding, Scripture-skewing powerful emotions.

Once you get here it does not matter WHAT the Bible says- you will refuse to accept it because you do not like it.

Once you "feel" so strongly about something, logic is out the window and with it goes truth.

This is how "homosexual Christians" interpret the Scripture. They have extremely powerful feelings about their lifestyle and they CANNOT see the condemnation of homosexuality in the Scriptures. They just cannot IMAGINE a God who would condemn something so sacred to them. So they can't see it.

Some of you CANNOT IMAGINE a God who would will horrible things to come to pass, things that God HATES, so that those things can bring about an infinitely great and holy ETERNAL purpose.


But here's my point.

Saying "You're WRONG!!! God would NEVER ordain such a thing!!! You are EVIL for suggesting that God intended in eternity past for these horrible things to happen!!!" is not an argument.

It is nothing but blind emotion.

The Catholic just can't IMAGINE a God who would not require works in order to save.

It does not matter what the Bible says. The Catholic is already blinded by powerful emotions.

But he cannot argue against it exegetically (from the Scripture). But he does not CARE. HIS GOD would never save anyone without requiring them to do works.


Just because you SAY "God would never..." does not mean that Scripture agrees with you.

And it is not an argument.

It is nothing more than an emotional, unwarranted claim.

Rather than address or even reference one scripture, we have as a given those who disagree are blind.

Calvinism charges others with disregarding what the Bible says, but the bible says things happen by chance. Therefore it is Calvinism that disregards what scripture says.

Those that oppose Calvinism are said to be driven by emotion, rather than a love for the truth. One false charge follows another in this typical effort to defend the mistaken doctrine of Calvinism.

Next comes a guilt by association argument, those that oppose Calvinism are like those who deny homosexual behavior is condemned in scripture.

Then we get the charge we lack the intellectual capacity to imagine a God that punishes those who behave as He predestined them to act.

Next we get the strawman argument to knock down, those that oppose Calvinism are said to support a works based salvation. Pure twaddle.

This entire OP is nothing more "than an emotional, unwarranted claim."

Total Spiritual Inability is a mistaken doctrine for unregenerate men received the gospel with joy.

Unconditional Election for salvation is a mistaken doctrine for we are chosen through faith in the truth.

Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism is a mistaken doctrine for Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

Irresistible Grace is a mistaken doctrine because men who were entering heaven we blocked by false teachers teachings false doctrine.

 

[Luke2427]

And most Calvinists cannot see that the way they present Calvinism makes God a monster and responsible for all the misery and evil in our world.

Proof that my premise is correct.

 

[Luke2427]

Rather than address or even reference one scripture, we have as a given those who disagree are blind.

Calvinism charges others with disregarding what the Bible says, but the bible says things happen by chance.

The Bible also says that God has wings and horns and is covered with eyeballs.

This is why hermeneutics is so important.

Therefore it is Calvinism that disregards what scripture says.

The Reformers were exegetes who not only championed the clarion call Sola Scriptura but were committed to interpreting that Scripture PROPERLY (in context, understanding the appropriate literary genre, etc...)

Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism is a mistaken doctrine for Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

More proof that poor hermeneutics are behind some Arminian's problem.

Educated Arminians (whether seminary educated or self-educated via reading the works of scholars) admit that "world" even "whole world" in the Bible almost NEVER means "every single person."

It is these independent, self-ascribed Bible thinkers that always retreat to this kind of argument.

Ten minutes in a good Bible seminary would lead you to a much better argument.

Skan could help you here.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Proof that my premise is correct.

YES....that is why I was laughing. :thumbs:

if you were to draw a linear graph putting the RCC on the left (extreme left) & the Old School Baptists on the extreme right (then start filling in the spaces in between), where would you put most of these anthropocentric types?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Proof that my premise is correct.

Hardly. We have discussed Calvinism before. At the earlier time, when we began, I had not particular opinion, but your answers and examples convinced me that Calvinism, at least as your understand it, is a horrible theology to believe. You said, and you gave a link to John Piper that proved my point.

When I pointed this our you responded saying that all the bad things that happen are ordained by God to bring glory to himself.

I then gave you examples and ask how this could be. You did not respond to my questions.

Actually, Luke, as I said, it is you who has convinced me that Calvinism is wrong. I am not sure Calvin would recognize his own theology from your and others explanations.

So, I stand by my comment...Calvinism as explained by you makes God into a horrible being, not a loving god at all.

I cannot respond for several days as I will be away until next Monday.

Have a blessed weekend.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

you should quantify it......are you referring to Double Predestination, Fatalism, etc. Anyway, are you basing a whole belief system off of what one guy says on an internet forum or have you studied it enough to have a grasp on it? Personally, by your commentary Crabby, it is the latter......BTW have a safe trip.

 

[Revmitchell]

The problem is the skewed view of the Sovereignty of God by Reformed folks. In their over simplistic world if God did not initiate the action and control it like a puppeteer then He is not Sovereign over it. This is false and really very sophomoric.

God is sovereign even while men make choices He neither initiated or specifically controls.

 

[Bronconagurski]

The problem is the skewed view of the Sovereignty of God by Reformed folks. In their over simplistic world if God did not initiate the action and control it like a puppeteer then He is not Sovereign over it. This is false and really very sophomoric.

God is sovereign even while men make choices He neither initiated or specifically controls.

I agree with that last statement. Romans 8: 28 would not be in the bible if God was merely a puppeteer. When the original autographs were written, even then God did not dictate like a boss to a secretary. The Holy Spirit did superintend the words that He breathed, but they were written in the language and style of the writer.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I agree with that last statement. Romans 8: 28 would not be in the bible if God was merely a puppeteer. When the original autographs were written, even then God did not dictate like a boss to a secretary. The Holy Spirit did superintend the words that He breathed, but they were written in the language and style of the writer.

And I do not agree. Who indicated that "God was merely a puppeteer"? Are you suggesting this is what Doctrines Believers hold to?!? Please clarify your statement. Thank you.

 

[Revmitchell]

And I do not agree. Who indicated that "God was merely a puppeteer"? Are you suggesting this is what Doctrines Believers hold to?!? Please clarify your statement. Thank you.

I used the word "puppeteer" to describe the idea that God has had to be the initiator and in control of the movements of evil in order to be Sovereign. It is a very apt description of a very bad theology.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I used the word "puppeteer" to describe the idea that God has had to be the initiator and in control of the movements of evil in order to be Sovereign. It is a very apt description of a very bad theology.

But where did you hear that from & is that your impression of a DoG believer...IE, this is what they believe?

If so, then in what doctrine does this come from?