Featured The Biblical God

Actually, DHK agreed with me that he would not worship the God described in the 1689 CoF.

And I don't need to play victim, especially when dealing with you. Like I said, you probably thought you were giving a real argument in your post where you tried to slur me. That is the only debate tactic you seem to have.

And if you are asking me if God had the right to command Saul to destroy the Amalekites and all they have, yes, God has a perfect right to take any person's life.

But God did not do this without reason or cause, the Amalekites had laid wait for the Jews when they came out of Egypt, and God had sworn he would destroy the Amalekites because of this.

That does not mean their babies and little children would go to hell, they were not guilty of their parents sin.

But if they had been allowed to live, they would follow in their parents paths and fight against Israel again.

So, God had every right to destroy this wicked people who opposed the people of God.

 

Right, this is a difficult verse that a person must have a PhD to understand.

God said that he never commanded the Jews to sacrifice their children to idols. In fact, he said this never entered his mind. It was not God's idea that they do this, they were acting on their own.

Did God know what they did? Of course, how could he speak about it if he did not know about it. But he did not command it, and the definition of the word "ordain" means to command or decree something.

Of course, you are a Calvinist and definitions to words do not mean much to you.

 

You could very well be right on this....in fact....you probably are. I may have jumped too quick. I'll start another thread to ask something, so as not to derail this thread....

 

Thank you for your honesty Willis. :thumbsup:

This is what is called "natural law". It is what all men innately understand.

For example, if you saw three teenage boys jump on an elderly man and beat him severely to steal his wallet, would you need a written law to know that was wrong?

And this may shock you Willis, but sinning is absolutely unnatural for men. That is why men feel guilty and afraid when they sin. When men do right, they naturally feel happy, because this is how they were designed to be.

And the conscience by definition means that men naturally know what is right and wrong and by instinct desire to do that which is right. Look the word up in any dictionary;

So, the fact that we have a conscience itself refutes Total Inability. You may not like that, but it is true. Man naturally desires to do good and is happiest when he does good. Man is most guilty and fearful when he does that which is wrong.

That said, if you practice sin long enough, the conscience can be seared to where a man does not feel it anymore, and he can come to love sin.

But that is not how men are born.

 

Actually Inspector J. pointed out that the OP was sort of self defeating, a bit illogical.

1. There is a lot the Scripture doesn't say about God.
2. There is a lot in the 1689 CoF to disagree with, and much that it doesn't say about God.

For example, suppose the God you describe spends a good part of his time jumping through hula-hoops, would you still worship Him?
But then how do you know if he does or not?
All philosophical and pure conjecture, and of course you would say nonsense.

The point I was making before is that it is impossible to define God through the CoF's decrees as it attempts to do.

Consider Scripture:
Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
--His judgments are unsearchable.
--No man can know his mind.
--No man has ever been his counselor.

How can such a document know the decrees of the Lord, when no man can know the mind of the Lord? Impossible!

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

The decrees of God cannot be known, and yet man presumes to know what only God can know.

How can a finite man comprehend an infinite God? He cannot. Neither can a piece of paper written in 1689 properly define him.

 

Your own doctrine is going right over your head. If the 1689 CoF were true, you would have no choice in the matter. If God regenerated you, you would irresistibly worship him, if he passed over you, you could not possibly worship him.

You don't even realize that your OP question is ridiculous and nonsensical if the 1689 CoF is true.

You don't even understand Calvinism.

 

Why not study this verse instead of trying to demonize me?
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

The verse does not say "that we might know ALL things that are freely given to us of God."
You inadvertently insert an "ALL," though it is not shown. God has revealed to us, in His Word, ALL that we need to know about Him. That is all and there is no more. We will learn more in heaven. To assume more than that is pure arrogance on the part of the Calvinist as I previously pointed out to you.

The way that you use this verse is the same way a Gnostic would. They claim a higher knowledge over and above the Scriptures. You are in error.

 

Here is the conclusion of your post if you want to get down to the meat and potatoes of it:

I gave you a well laid out scriptural answer that you could not accept, and this is the sum total of your response--your summary.
There were no holes.
There are no holes in Rom.11:33-36. Which part do you disagree with?
Which part of Isa.55 do you disagree with?
Or do you truly believe that the knowledge contained in the 1689 CoF supersedes that of the Bible?

My post pointed out your error. I am sorry you are offended.
Why not answer the post instead of attacking me.

More personal attacks. Scripture is not false accusations.

Gnosticism is claiming knowledge above and beyond that which is in the Bible. The "decrees" mentioned in the CoF; are they in the Bible or not? Simple Question.

You are the one that took scripture out of context and ignored the Scripture I originally gave. Go back to the original post and answer that.
Answer the Scripture I gave you in the first place. Your personal attacks aren't doing you any good.

 

I showed how you misinterpreted the Scripture that you bolded.
I don't have a "bogus system." You are the one with a "system" called Calvinism. I don't use a "man's system." I simply study the Bible.

1Cor.3:1-4: Paul calls the believers at Corinth carnal and you don't believe the Scriptures at this point. Who, therefore is wrong?

So you don't like the word "backslidden" even though the word "backsliding" is used 12 times in the Bible:

Hosea 14:4 I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him.
Jeremiah 3:22 Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the LORD our God.

Why not look up the context and see how long Israel was backslidden before God called them back, (or would you say before they "rededicated" themselves)? Or would that have been in the flesh also?
Were all the dedications of the OT "of the flesh"?

I don't slander. I don't substitute them for the Bible?
Do you?

 

In answer to your 1689 CoF I gave you Scripture from Romans 11:33-36, which tells us no one can know the mind of God. Those who claim they know what God decreed obviously are claiming they know the mind of God, or that which God has not decreed. You have not addressed this point.
Instead you posted this Scripture:
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
--and, "know the things freely given to us of God" you inferred to mean that we could know "all" about God, or "the decrees" of God. This was your answer. It is wrong. It is error. It is taking that part of that verse out of its context, the context being the Holy Spirit giving the believer illumination or understanding in God's Word. It has nothing to do said point.

You just proved what I said. You have a system (Calvinism). I don't; I simply believe the Bible. There are many things I believe. Are you just going to point to dispensationalism. That is not a system like Calvinism. For example, Calvinist MacArthur believes in dispensationalism. It has nothing to do with whether or not he is Calvinistic.
Like I said: I believe the Bible. It seems you are frustrated, and are just throwing out names at will.

I study the Scriptures daily; I preach at least twice weekly, sometimes more, and then I teach the Word as well. I don't have the time to listen to sermons, especially ones that teach error.

And yet these are your actual words:

"Think about it.....that is why you invent false ideas......carnal Christian, backslidden Christian, a Christian who has not been to church in decades...so you tell him to ...re-dedicate himself."

The above are your words, slanderous words at that. You just called "backslidden Christians a false idea invented by me.
Those are two false accusations. There is nothing there invented by me.
And the idea (doctrine) is not false. Like Israel, Christians backslide. That is why I gave you the Scriptures. Now, contrary to the above, you say you like the term. Why the turnabout??
The "17x"? It really doesn't matter much. It depends what electronic search engine you used. The software program I used said the exact word "backsliding" is found 12 times. But it is nothing to quibble about. The fact is, it is in the Bible a dozen or more times.

Again, more false accusations. Why don't you stop.
It is not "my" idea. It's been around. I don't practice it. Why are you attributing it to me. I have nothing against those who do dedicate their lives to the Lord. But I don't remember commenting on this topic. Basically you are out of line for attributing things to me that I have never commented on.

Disagreeing with you or with any dusty document is not slander.