Featured thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself:

Inspector Javert

I gladly use the writings of godly teachers.You should try it.As a matter of fact look at Thomas Watsons fine article and learn about how many ways you commit this sin.Then repent.

 

Inspector Javert

Hello IJ

I can only post what I see and understand.These sins are to be avoided at all costs. Do you believe we should get as close to sin as possible? Or as far from it as we can?

Did Jesus expand the peoples understanding of adultery...or did he make it less?

We have inter acted online and in that way gotten familiar with each other.Are you sure that because I drive a truck that you are not sub consciously setting aside good counsel for that reason.
Take me out of the equation as the messenger...Let Mr. Watson speak those words to your mind and heart...meditate upon the verses he offers.

you seem to make my case here...so ignore me...but face the issue and full scope of the command.

Or then again....I am on target believing most things Watson speaks of...then offer a warning in this thread to any who would be prone to this sinful kind of expression.As a consequence I am now to be vilified by the offended parties.:thumbsup:

Most anything I express I have learned from godly teachers. I am not that smart or I would not have a steering wheel in my hands ...70 hrs a week.

I will say this.....when I first read these teachers I was stunned at the depth and scope of the commandments and how they expanded my ideas on them.
I attempted to resist also...quite sinfully.

Most of my sin now...is not from a lack of knowledge...but rather a lack of obeying and living up to the light of the word that I have been given.

Shamefully I have taken the Lord's name in vain by sinful conduct as a Christian.

well...it would not be the first time I have not fully understood something...I have much to learn:laugh:

.

That's why I offered the link....exactly...He is considered a classic read on the Ten Commandments. Glad you enjoyed the link....I would recommend Body of Divinity.

Good idea.....I will probably learn more going back over it. That sin is grievious and I would like to do all I can not to come under God's chastisement .... Maybe we all should read it again.

 

IJ,

In the op....the language of psalm 50 is that the people thought of God as if He was finite and limited;
16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?

17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

.

21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

22 Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

Do you think any language used by anyone calling God or His Holy wisdom "names"
phony, liar, monster, evil, hateful.....can ever be acceptable? I do not and although I picked a recent post from winman there have been others who do this.

For someone to do this.....they do not see any problem with it.....because they do not see God's Holiness with Isa/6 glasses on- So they do not consider as Psalm 50 indicates they should. That they see nothing wrong with it is either wicked...or just plain stupid.

Let me put it this way.....if the Cals are correct on the 5 pts as being the teaching of scripture and the God who sits enthroned in heaven has Winman go up to his face...would he speak this foulness to Him? Would it even cross his mind to do so?

Do you believe anyone will speak evil at the white throne judgement? Again ..I do not.

This to me is bible 101.....While I understand arminian theology to be a horrible misunderstanding of scripture....you should not expect me to use evil language of the True and living God because of their bad theology.

To suggest as Winman has...that Calvinists do not worship the biblical God is more problematic and accusatory than my offering this thread as a caution.

If Cals do not worship the biblical God....are they unsaved? That seems to be what is being said...correct? I did not post it...I just read it as you did.

I see no non cal rush in and say...Winman....that is out of line, or arrogant..did you?

The fact that others did not comment tells me they are ignoring Winmans posts as harmful to living brain cells....lol....what else could account for this.

 

The ten Commandments are still in full effect for all men everywhere.In the new Covenant they are in our heart.

Chapter 19: Of the Law of God
1._____ God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
( Genesis 1:27; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:10, 12 )

2._____ The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.
( Romans 2:14, 15; Deuteronomy 10:4 )

3._____ Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.
( Hebrews 10:1; Colossians 2:17; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Colossians 2:14, 16, 17; Ephesians 2:14, 16 )

4._____ To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.
( 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 )

5._____ The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
( Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-12; James 2:10, 11; Matthew 5:17-19; Romans 3:31 )

6._____ Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.
( Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16; Romans 8:1; Romans 10:4; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7, etc; Romans 6:12-14; 1 Peter 3:8-13 )

7._____ Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
( Galatians 3:21; Ezekiel 36:27 )

 

Sapper Woody

Hello SW...

Let's stop laughing and take a second look...

Because a person does not understand theology correctly...does not give them a free pass to say these things;

1]

SW.....In reality ,in Calvinism....God is God.There are not two God's.

Winman is clueless about this God. He says so with his own words here;
from post 13-

2]I was the one who said the God of Calvinism is a phony, and I stand by my words.

3]This is not the God of the Holy Bible, this is the God of Calvinism, they are not the same.


The thing is...SW.... it is the God of the bible.Because Winman denies the biblical revelation of this God who does as Calvinism teaches, does not change reality.
Again there is only one true God....

4]Actually, the God of Calvinism is far worse than that, he condemns men for some mysterious unknown reason

This is a denial of biblical revelation.Gods wrath is revealed against sinful men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness...rom1.
Here in trying to show he does not like Calvinism...He speaks evil about God because he does not have a proper grasp of scripture.

5]I am not blaspheming the true God,


but he is.

6]the true God of the Bible loves all men and is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The bible does not teach this...a half of a verse out of it's context does not equal biblical truth.

SW...no one has or can make this biblical case...If you look at the highlighted portions of Thomas Watsons teaching...it exposes what is taking place here

Do you suggest that the God all the puritans and reformers worshipped is not the biblical God? Again he does not grasp the biblical teaching.

.

Not at all.Unless you think Cals have another God and another gospel,

.

No need to feel sorry SW.I understand exactly what I am reading.It is one thing to biblically discuss calvinism...it is quite another to speak evil and find fault with God.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Winman says yes there is[read post 13 what he says about election]....others do also on BB.

me too.:thumbsup:

He is indeed...he questions God's wisdom and goodness

make no mistake about that he hates calvinism alright...but also the God of Calvinism....ask him SW.....ask him if the biblical God is the God of Calvinism and does as Cals teach...would you worship Him?

 

BobRyan

Yes..the 1689 confession.

Hello Bob

Here is the best explanation I found in this regard...your thinking and that of Andy Stanley on the commandments...even though we might differ in many other areas is on the money...
This is from ...A Baptist Catechism with Commentary,by W.R. Downing...used by permission.
Quest. 43: What is the sum of the Ten Commandments?
Ans: The sum of the Ten Commandments is to love God with the
totality of our beings and to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Deut. 6:4–5. 4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5And
thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy might.
93
Matt. 22:37–39. 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like
unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 39On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Jas. 2:10. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in
one point, he is guilty of all.
See also: Ex. 20:1–17; Deut. 6:4–5; 1 Tim. 1:5–11; Jas. 2:10–11.
COMMENTARY
A general introduction to the Moral Law, Decalogue or Ten
Commandments is necessary before an exposition of each separate
Commandment in order to gain a proper understanding of the nature and
character of God’s Law.
The Decalogue may seem deceptively simple, as each Commandment is
given in very specific terms, i.e., as an example of case law. Case law is
representative of very broad and inclusive principles—as demonstrated by
further examples of case law throughout the remainder of Scripture. These
principles derive from the moral self–consistency God, and thus every
Commandment necessarily either condemns any and all thoughts and
inclinations which lead to any overt act of transgression, and likewise
commends the conscience toward all thoughts and inclinations toward
obedience. E.g., the one who looks upon a woman in lust has already
committed adultery in his heart before God (Matt. 5:27–28). The one who
hates his brother is a murderer (1 Jn. 3:15). [COLOR=

"DarkRed
"]This means that the Moral Law of God codified in the Decalogue is capable of infinite and inclusive expansion.[/COLOR]

In each Commandment, the negative implies the positive, and the positive
implies the negative. The Law in its positive declaration commands total and
unswerving obedience, allegiance and devotion [love] to God; and due respect
to, equitable dealings with and a love for all men (Deut. 6:4–5; Matt. 22:36–
40). Negative law is necessarily specific and restricted; positive law is
necessarily totalitarian and thus positive law is the domain of God alone.
The Law of God is a unity. To break one of God’s Commandments is to break them all (Rom. 3:19–20; Gal. 3:10; Jas. 2:10).

See Question 63. Every
sin is against God. Every sinner is a law–breaker, an “outlaw” before God—
whether one or all of the commandments are broken—and the one penalty for the breaking of one or all the commandments is death—eternal death—
because all sin and every sin is against God himself—an infinite, eternal, holy and righteous God. God has legislated morality in the Decalogue. These
Commandments cannot be improved upon, and, in principle, underlie the
religious, moral, philosophical, legal and social basis of all historical attempts
at equitable and consistent human law. We simply must not casually set aside or ignore the Moral Law of God!

The best commentary on the Moral Law is the Scripture itself. The
principle variously known as the “analogy of faith,” the perspicuity of
94
Scripture or “Scripture interprets Scripture” demonstrates the true meaning
and full implications of the Moral Law. The New Testament is the great, inspired gospel commentary on the relevant and inclusive nature of the Moral Law.
In the Decalogue, eight Commandments are framed in the negative, each
definitely and strongly enforcing a perpetual prohibition in the Hebrew. Two
are framed in the positive, and are also very stringent in their force, using the strongest possible grammatical construction.
[/QUOTE]

 

Benjamin

Hello Benjamin,

Those who hold to the 1689 believe indeed that the doctrine of the word of God teaches these things. hence it starts with;

also as time permits..read the 3 short links of TW....then the language used to deny the Holy immutable character of God.

 

Inspector Javert

.

IJ.....as far as going off the deep end....you have spoken in support of...Pelagius, Molina, Finney, and now Winman...who is next,,,Judas???:laugh::laugh::laugh:

So in your mind...Calvinism has nothing to do about the Biblical God.It is only a system that has nothing to do with scripture at all, a system without God in it? To you and your line of reasoning all the theologians who have agreed that these truths are the teaching of and from scripture are somehow all mistaken.Yes I am sure that it is,lol. Winman denies romans 3 and 5 says we are not born sinners and you align yourself with those ideas.

You repeat the false Idea that he has not spoken blasphemously.That is your prerogative.I know what he has posted and stand on what I have posted.

 

IJ,

In an earlier post I have indicated how Winman wants to re-define God. He clearly states that the biblical God...is not the same as the Calvinist God.I have quoted him on that.You have not addressed him on that error at all,have you?

You seem to miss this fact. You offer me this;

Yet...you clearly understand that there is one true God.My contention is that Winman did not speak directly at the teaching called Calvinism....but his wording was at God himself...because he fails to understand the teaching of both who God is-[monergistic,ans absolutely sovereign]...as well as what Calvinists who DO have a correct view of God and the teaching of scripture, do believe.

 

Well IJ

Let's see how Win man responds to the new thread. That might clarify for you what in other posts he has posted about this issue