Does God Want Children To Be Abused?

[The Biblicist]

You HAVE NOT answered my post. It is simple as 5th grade recess. I didn't ask "Does God punish sin". I didn't ask "does God PERMIT evil". You are attempting to morph your own premise on to my question in an attempt to hijack the subject and turn it into something you don't have to answer. My free will buckles against your determination to change the subject. And I can CHOOSE to ignore your question because you have not given a straight answer. If you don't want to answer it, fine. Then we have nothing further to discuss as you have abandoned the debate.

If you choose to answer it. The question is does God WANT and DESIRE the abuse, rape and molestation of women and children. Now I hope you know the difference between what God PERMITS and what God WANTS and PREFERS. If you don't know the difference then you can't answer this question anyway.

You did not ask about God's response to such things BEFORE CREATION or BEFORE THE FALL. Your question has no validity BEFORE CREATION because there was no sin BEFORE CREATION.

Your question is about God's response to post-fallen consequences of sin - plain and simple. Your question is skewed because it implies the answer. Does God take delight in these consequences of sin??? That question cannot be answered truthfully or fully without considering God's delight in righteousness from both a negative (justice) and postive (goodness) point of view. You simply want the positive point and it is inferred in the very nature of your question.

However, there is more to God and to consequences of sin than the mere positive response. These acts of sin are also JUST CONSEQUENCES that God delights in according to JUSTICE not according to "goodness" of them.

God hates sin in the first place but you are referring to the CONSEQUENCES of sin which places the question on an entirely different level.

The bottom line is that your question is DEVIOUS and devoid of integrity or truth and the introductory line proves it and anyone with two grains of common sense can easily see through your pretensive question.

 

[The Archangel]

I don't think that's what Archangel is doing....
In general, I think he is an intelligent, well-meaning and intellectually honest man. I don't think he meant to imply an "ad-hominem" there.
He was critical of you yes...but that isn't an "ad-hominem"...

I think that he secretly believed that his mastery of languages (vs. most of us mono-linguists anyway) would create a default impression of respect for his identity as a logician....Thus creating a sort of "Fallacy of Authority"...

Maybe...but, I believe that if you are quite reasonable and scholarly and genuine with him....he will not default to nasty pejoratives and insanity. I think Archangel is someone with whom you might have some informative and fruitful conversation. He is not so very impossible as some Calvinists on B.B. might be. He's quite a sane and reasonable man I.M.O. I think you could have positive and fruitful and informative debates with him.......I think you could probably learn from him actually.

Thank you for the kind words, Javert.

The fallacies I addressed were not strictly based on the wording of the question, but the suspected intent behind them. So, technically, yes--I may have gone too far. However, considering the source and how most of his 1,000 posts have played out, it the suspicions of his intent are not without merit.

Was his initial question "Begging the question?" Well, I think so--only because of his history. It is plain to see that he is trying to back people into a corner by giving them only two choices and then trying to "destroy" them. Perhaps the intent behind the question, more than begging the question, is an example of the undistributed middle, perhaps it's an example of the false dichotomy.

In any event, the question assumes a common "fact" that, sadly, women and children are indeed abused. DrJamesAch's question assumes that (which isn't a logical problem), but identifies through implication (seen in his past history) "God" as the "cause." He seeks to paint God as nothing more than the vindictive and crazy kid burning ants with a magnifying glass.

In final analysis, the question itself was not "honest." A more honest question that does not itself beg the question would have been something like "How can God's sovereignty and man's free will coexist? Then, in the OP, he could have used the abuse of women and children as an example asking, "how/why does God allow abuse? Does He want abuse to happen? Does He permit abuse to happen? We know abuse does happen, why does it happen and where is God when it does happen?"

And, again, I'd say the other fallacies I cited are based on the assumed intent behind the question. Like so many things in this life, the way a question is asked betrays more than what is asked.

The Archangel

 

[DrJamesAch]

You did not ask about God's response to such things BEFORE CREATION or BEFORE THE FALL. Your question has no validity BEFORE CREATION because there was no sin BEFORE CREATION.

Your question is about God's response to post-fallen consequences of sin - plain and simple. Your question is skewed because it implies the answer. Does God take delight in these consequences of sin??? That question cannot be answered truthfully or fully without considering God's delight in righteousness from both a negative (justice) and postive (goodness) point of view. You simply want the positive point and it is inferred in the very nature of your question.

However, there is more to God and to consequences of sin than the mere positive response. These acts of sin are also JUST CONSEQUENCES that God delights in according to JUSTICE not according to "goodness" of them.

God hates sin in the first place but you are referring to the CONSEQUENCES of sin which places the question on an entirely different level.

The bottom line is that your question is DEVIOUS and devoid of integrity or truth and the introductory line proves it and anyone with two grains of common sense can easily see through your pretensive question.

You sound like my wife and mother-in-law, always reading something else into what was actually said.

So in other words, the Father could not have loved the Son and the Son could not love the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit could not love the Father UNLESS there was also Justice!!! So God wasn't really God until He became sovereign over creation and demonstrated justice? So God lived from eternity past and was not content?

I've already debunked your accusation that I don't "want just the positive" and you simply choose to ignore that and bootstrap your assumptions on to me.

It's amazing at how such a simple question can literally make an engine explode by those who have no understanding of the real nature and love of God. You would think that a professing Christian would want to know what does God want, and what does God desire and prefer, and you can't seem to answer that.

I'm simply not falling for your hacked up versions of the questions and your potential insinuations. Does God WANT and DESIRE the abuse of women and children. Pretty simple question.

 

[The Archangel]

Mr T advice for ALL posts/threads started by "Dr" A - (you know what it is)

Ignoring a fool is the right of any on the BB. His hatred for a sovereign God in control of all things (whether we, in our depraved mind, think them "good" or "bad") sickens me.

With all due respect, this isn't the issue.

The issue is that we all supposedly agree to a list of "rules" when we post here.

Allow me to cite rules 3 + 4:

[SIZE=-1]3. Show grace to the other posters. When someone disagrees with you, discuss it; but be slow to offend, and eager to get into the Word and find the answers. Remember, when discussing passionate issues, it is easy to go too far and offend. Further, if we are "earnestly contending for the faith" it would be unrealistic not to expect at times to be misunderstood or even ridiculed. But please note that your words can sometimes be harsh if used in the wrong way. The anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

4. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The board has an edit button enabled. We encourage you to use it and edit your own words. Moderators and Administrators will be visibly proactive in dealing with potentially offensive situations. Posts of a violent or threatening nature, either implicitly or explicitly, will be deleted, and the poster's membership revoked. We encourage personal problems with other members be resolved privately via email or personal messaging.[/SIZE]

Why bother to have these rules if they are ignored by those who post here and by Admins and Mods who are supposed to "monitor" the playground, so to speak?

When someone is able to post or imply that Calvinists: 1.) are all anti-Semites; 2.) are all racists responsible for Apartheid; 3.) Satan worshipers; 4.) Buddhists at heart; and 5.) approving of violence against children and women.

He has done this things with impunity and without apology. When his threads are closed, he complains in other fora.

If these things aren't going to be policed, why have rules or mods or admins?

That, I think, is "the point."

And, by the way, I've reported posts of Calvinists and taken them to task publicly for the very same things directed toward non-Cals. I don't think Calvinism is the problem and I don't think Arminianism is the problem. No, the the problem is those who are anti-Calvinists and those who are anti-Arminians.

The Archangel

 

[Inspector Javert]

Thank you for the kind words, Javert.

They weren't THAT kind...so, in my estimation, that you would even refer to them as such does you credit. :wavey: I am only trying to keep discussions "accurate" and "fair" and what-not...so I'm "calling them as I see them".....As a non-Calvinist, I doubt I am as objective with your posts as I should be....but, I try (a little).

The fallacies I addressed were not strictly based on the wording of the question, but the suspected intent behind them. So, technically, yes--I may have gone too far. However, considering the source and how most of his 1,000 posts have played out, it the suspicions of his intent are not without merit.

You are no doubt 100% correct about what you claim was his "intent"....but, I consider that a perfectly fair line of debate. He was ULTIMATELY trying to "trap" you, into a position you didn't want to be in. Of course he was. That isn't an unfair method of debate though.
Obviously...you knew full-well where he was going with this, as did I....but, we do indeed have a responsibility to be able to answer all of those questions though..... It's not fun to be put on the spot, but, I daresay...if You have some hard-hitting and even "leading" questions for an Arminian (such as myself)...I am willing to answer them.

Was his initial question "Begging the question?" Well, I think so--only because of his history. It is plain to see that he is trying to back people into a corner by giving them only two choices and then trying to "destroy" them.

They are "hard-hitting" sort of questions no doubt.
I'll put it this way:
1.) "Calvinism" as such has strengths and some weaknesses which render it, as a system of Theology sometimes difficult to defend.
2.) "Arminianism" as such has strengths and some weaknesses which render it, as a system of Theology sometimes difficult to defend.

I believe that BOTH of those statements are true:
Thus, I do not think that it behooves an educated Calvinist to "avoid" what are Dr. J's (obviously leading) questions....but to know how to answer them.

I, similarly, would like to think that I would not shy away from directly answering any decidedly "difficult" (or even leading) questions from a Calvinist....
Try it! Post a thread where you ask some (quite difficult and even "leading" questions for us Arms). I think you'll find that we'll play ball with you! :jesus:

Perhaps the intent behind the question, more than begging the question, is an example of the undistributed middle, perhaps it's an example of the false dichotomy.

Ughh... the "Undistributed Middle" is a formal fallacy, whereas "question-begging" is an informal one...so also the "false dichotomy"....
blech...
Let's just avoid the technical terminology for now.

In final analysis, the question itself was not "honest." A more honest question that does not itself beg the question would have been something like "How can God's sovereignty and man's free will coexist? Then, in the OP, he could have used the abuse of women and children as an example asking, "how/why does God allow abuse? Does He want abuse to happen? Does He permit abuse to happen? We know abuse does happen, why does it happen and where is God when it does happen?"

Actually...I think the question, precisely as he asked it, was a fair question.
I know full-well, as you do, where he was "going" with it....but, I don't think it wrong to ask. I honestly believe that the onus of "giving an answer" rests upon your shoulders....
I would also like to think that I am perfectly willing to answer ANY (even though I'll know where you're leading me) question you might have for any confessional Arminian as well.
....................................

Personally.....I've always appreciated your inter-action on this board. I don't always "agree" with you by any stretch of the imagination, but I appreciate the normally intelligent and well-put posts you add to the discussion.:applause:.....God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

You sound like my wife and mother-in-law, always reading something else into what was actually said.

So in other words, the Father could not have loved the Son and the Son could not love the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit could not love the Father UNLESS there was also Justice!!! So God wasn't really God until He became sovereign over creation and demonstrated justice? So God lived from eternity past and was not content?

You really have some rational issues! Are you not forgetting one little detail? There are no consequences of sin within the Godhead relationship!!!!!! So you whole analogy is silly and invalid.

Second, only when sin is involved must both negative and positive consideration be addressed. No such negative can be found in the relationship between the Godhead.


Third, I have tried to reason with your stupidity but irrationality coupled with stupidity cannot be reasoned with so I will take Dr. Bob's advice and leave you alone as you are your own worst enemy.

 

[quantumfaith]

Mr T advice for ALL posts/threads started by "Dr" A - (you know what it is)

Ignoring a fool is the right of any on the BB. His hatred for a sovereign God in control of all things (whether we, in our depraved mind, think them "good" or "bad") sickens me.

Dr. Bob,

He does not ever display a sliver of "hatred" for a sovereign God, not an appropriate observation. Rather, he asks probing questions mean (at times a bit inflammatory) to demonstrate a difference in how differently people view the expression of God's sovereignty.

 

[The Archangel]

For the sake and at the request of my friend "Inspector Javert"

The question of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility cannot be fully answered here. The questions can, however, be summarized.

Here are the things we know that are revealed in Scripture:

1. God is absolutely sovereign.
2. Man is absolutely responsible.

How do those two things go together? We can't fully say.

Yet, in the Old Testament we see (in Genesis 50) that Joseph says to his brothers (who "abused" him) "what you (the brothers) meant for evil, God meant for good.

So, we know that the brothers did indeed intend to do evil and harm to Joseph. We know that they committed the evil and did the harm. And, we know these things did not happen in a vacuum. In other words, God was not absent during this abuse.

We know, also, since God intended the evil of the brothers for good, that God, somehow, superintends the free and even sinful actions of man to serve His purposes, display His glory, and unfold His "script" for history.

So, the answer to the OP has to be, in some sense, "yes" and "no" because there are more things at work here than we can know and more things going on than we can see.

Does God permit ugly and disgraceful things like abuse? Yes. Is there purpose in His permission? Yes. Is He absolutely sovereign even during the times of abuse? Yes. Is the perpetrator(s) responsible for what they've done? Yes. Does the evil that men do to one another please Him? No.

The theological answer to the predicament is: God foreordains the free and sometimes sinful actions of man in order that His purposes come to pass and His glory is displayed.

Even the sinful actions of man are "factored in" (for lack of a better expression) to His plan. There is nothing random. All things, the good and the bad, have a purpose--and that purposes is God's alone and it is known to Him alone.

Of course, that isn't an easy pill to swallow, especially for those who want everything neat and tidy.

But, for those that rail against a sovereign God and a responsible man, the issue is one of trust--Will we trust that God knows what He is doing? Will we trust God even as He allows us to be killed, beaten, etc.?

Or, to bring it closer to home, will we pray and affirm God's sovereignty when we are diagnosed with a disease and are miraculously cured only? Or, will we pray in thankfulness affirming His sovereignty, His grace, and His love for us even as cancer rapidly ends our lives? Is our desire His glory or our comfort? And, will we trust that He knows what is best for us, even if that "best" is death or abuse?

The Archangel

 

[Aaron]

Let's see how many people will be honest and consistent with their theology.

Simple question, does God WANT children and women to be physically abused, raped and molested?

Prove your answers yes or no with Scripture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHMH-R6g4vs&list=PLxgUkHTvXNoYSV9JR0UdjV-YEYaHVYssQ

You didn't ask an honest question, but you will get an honest answer. Did God want Jesus tortured? He was a man, made under the law, sinless and in all ways pleasing to Him. Favored, actually, allowing neither a broken bone nor the rotting of His flesh.

So you asked about women and children. No matter. God is no respecter of persons. The violation of them is no more heinous than the violation of adult men.

Did God want Joseph sold into slavery? Did He want him in prison. Does God delight in the persecution of His people?

The answer is no. But He wills it.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Don't equivocate:

You didn't ask an honest question, but you will get an honest answer. Did God want Jesus tortured? He was a man, made under the law, sinless and in all ways pleasing to Him. Favored, actually, allowing neither a broken bone nor the rotting of His flesh.

YES YES YES, God WANTED all of that...."It pleased the Lord to bruise him", but there is no correlation between that and the sufferings of women and children etc... per the O.P.

There is no correlation between God's "willing" the sufferings of Christ and the gratuitious sufferings of innocents in human terms. :BangHead::BangHead:

Also, the equivocation between God's purposes with Joseph are completely irrelevant to his will for Christ.

 

[preacher4truth]

Did God want to Job and his children to be abused????

???

Job concluded that he received both good and evil at the hand of the Lord, and in his conclusion he did not sin with his lips.

Yet, we have those today (and within this thread) that would slander him and say he did sin with his lips.

Go figure. :wavey:

 

[Inspector Javert]

..............

 

[preacher4truth]

..............

HoS, your best answer to date.

 

[Iconoclast]

Did God want to Job and his children to be abused????

???

Job concluded that he received both good and evil at the hand of the Lord, and in his conclusion he did not sin with his lips.

Yet, we have those today (and within this thread) that would slander him and say he did sin with his lips.

Go figure. :wavey:

Yes P4T,

This is another blame God for mans sin thread. The rebellion of the ungodly continues to foam up...
2 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

With all due respect, this isn't the issue.

The issue is that we all supposedly agree to a list of "rules" when we post here.

Allow me to cite rules 3 + 4:



Why bother to have these rules if they are ignored by those who post here and by Admins and Mods who are supposed to "monitor" the playground, so to speak?

When someone is able to post or imply that Calvinists: 1.) are all anti-Semites; 2.) are all racists responsible for Apartheid; 3.) Satan worshipers; 4.) Buddhists at heart; and 5.) approving of violence against children and women.

He has done this things with impunity and without apology. When his threads are closed, he complains in others.

If these things aren't going to be policed, why have rules or mods or admins?

I've been told that it is against the rules to question somebody's salvation, but then, none of the mods seem to mind when he calls us apostates and heretics, both things believed to put one's salvation in jeopardy, if not negate it altogether.

Remember what Snowball said in Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I've been told that it is against the rules to question somebody's salvation, but then, none of the mods seem to mind when he calls us apostates and heretics, both things believed to put one's salvation in jeopardy, if not negate it altogether.

Remember what Snowball said in Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

No honest Calvinist believes I am saved. How can I be saved if I "hate the sovereignty of God" and am a "fool"? If Calvinism IS the gospel, and every one of you Calvinists think that us Non Calvinists are "saving ourselves", then how you can lie through your teeth and claim that you believe we are all brothers in Christ?

Ultimately, no Calvinist on here believers that any Non Calvinist is saved. You can not disagree with how we believe salvation works, and at the same time confirm that you believe we are really born again. When a Calvinist accuses a Non Calvinist of believing that libertarian free will is what God permits for believing on Him unto salvation, and that such is works, you are accusing of believing in salvation by works which if you were HONEST you would would say that anyone else (Catholics for example) that also believe that are not saved.

Thus every time a Calvinist opens his mouth about a Non Calvinist, he/she is in fact, calling all of us heretics and unsaved people. Calvinist simply don't want to APPEAR to say that because they don't want to lose credibility within Christendom. Calvinists would rather make you think that you are a brother that is merely untaught, and maintain fellowship with you until they can convince you that Calvinism is the right belief, but in doing so, they have to maintain that we are just different brothers. No honest Calvinist, if they were consistent in their beliefs, would maintain with a straight face that us Non Cals are truly saved.

So you all can stop the act, quit acting so pious and just admit that you think all of us are hypocrites. I'm honest enough about my beliefs not to sugar coat what I think of your belief system, for goodness sake why don't you Calvinists do the same and come clean about what you really believe, and stop acting like you don't think the same thing that you accuse me and/or other Non Calvinists of.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I've been told that it is against the rules to question somebody's salvation, but then, none of the mods seem to mind when he calls us apostates and heretics, both things believed to put one's salvation in jeopardy, if not negate it altogether.

Remember what Snowball said in Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Come on JDF...how can you blame the moderators for being asleep at the wheel?!?:BangHead:

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach

No honest Calvinist believes I am saved.

It is not for a Calvinist or a non Calvinist to know who is saved.Only God reads and knows the heart. God alone knows who is SAVED...because salvation is 100% of God.
It is against BB rules to question anyone's salvation here on BB.
So in the judgement of charity we try and view each poster who professes saving faith to be an actual believer.
That being said...we do read your posts and have an opinion on what you post.

How can I be saved if I "hate the sovereignty of God" and am a "fool"?

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved! A saving belief is God given. This admission of your hatred for for the sovereignty of God and confessing you are a fool is a good step towards repentance and faith:thumbsup:
All manner of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to everyone who is savingly drawn to truth.

If Calvinism IS the gospel, and every one of you Calvinists think that us Non Calvinists are "saving ourselves", then how you can lie through your teeth and claim that you believe we are all brothers in Christ?

While Calvinism expanded and biblically explained is the gospel, not everyone who is saved understands many things in the bible. So we are to seek to edify one another and grow in grace and understanding of the truth.
Many who do not understand these things at first , come to learn and grow ,and study themselves into the truth...so we are not to judge them as they belong to God. We are to befaithful to feed the sheep, and protect them from false teaching wolves who like the fowls of the air seek to take away the seed of the word.

Ultimately, no Calvinist on here believers that any Non Calvinist is saved.

Not so....there is always a full spectrum of beliefs and conditions of the people on here, or in a local church.

You can not disagree with how we believe salvation works, and at the same time confirm that you believe we are really born again.

When someone is shaky in their understanding...better to proceed with caution and try and point them and correct their understanding of scripture.
If they are being drawn but not yet saved...the Spirit will work through the word being sown. If they are saved and have been exposed to some false teaching, or never really heard the truth explained correctly
God will use the person who is taught to help the young believer along.
If they are NOT BORN FROM ABOVE...they will be religious,but fight and resist truth at every turn because-
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

When a Calvinist accuses a Non Calvinist of believing that libertarian free will is what God permits for believing on Him unto salvation, and that such is works, you are accusing of believing in salvation by works which if you were HONEST you would would say that anyone else (Catholics for example) that also believe that are not saved.

That is correct.The person who believes in a salvation by works cannot be saved unless and until they repent and believe the gospel of grace.

Thus every time a Calvinist opens his mouth about a Non Calvinist, he/she is in fact, calling all of us heretics and unsaved people.

You have a habit of doing this. You over-think and try and project your thoughts on us. We do not think "all" are heretics or unsaved....however that is indeed possibly the case.

Calvinist simply don't want to APPEAR to say that because they don't want to lose credibility within Christendom.

In BB land Cals seek to operate within the guidelines set up by BB.That set of rules limits what can be expressed and how it can be expressed.

Calvinists would rather make you think that you are a brother that is merely untaught, and maintain fellowship with you until they can convince you that Calvinism is the right belief, but in doing so, they have to maintain that we are just different brothers

.

Again...we take someone at their profession,but pay attention to the warning signs..

No honest Calvinist, if they were consistent in their beliefs, would maintain with a straight face that us Non Cals are truly saved.

Some of the Cals were at one time opposed to the teaching they now embrace, so why would they do that knowing at one time they did not see as clearly as they do now? Some other brothers came along,confronted them with scripture...you know , what benjamin speaks against as proof -texting...but then the Spirit worked through those verses or sermons and they saw clearly what was there all the time.

So you all can stop the act, quit acting so pious and just admit that you think all of us are hypocrites

.

Not at all.Several non cals are sincere. They are the ones who will study themselves into a more scriptural position in time.

I'm honest enough about my beliefs not to sugar coat what I think of your belief system, for goodness sake why don't you Calvinists do the same and come clean about what you really believe, and stop acting like you don't think the same thing that you accuse me and/or other Non Calvinists of.

Ach....i do not think you can say that I have not been quite blunt with you, as you have mentioned i have gone after you right from the start.

I despise much of what you post...not so much as your non cal ideas...but the talebearing and evil speaking of calvinists, and in particular DR.White which is disgraceful in how you have an irrational hatred of Him.Perhaps fueled by envy, it is not much different that Cain and Abel.

If you remain non cal that is between you and God.Unless you repent of the ungodly posting about Dr.White and some of the other brothers...it will work toward you being judged according to your works:thumbsup:

 

[Aaron]

Don't equivocate:

There is no correlation between God's "willing" the sufferings of Christ and the gratuitious sufferings of innocents in human terms. :BangHead::BangHead:

An arbitrary presupposition on your part, stemming from a carnal sense of justice.

Deu 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.​

Rapists and molesters would have no power over their victims if it was not given them of the Lord.

 

[Aaron]

No honest Calvinist believes I am saved.

I wouldn't go that far. I mean it's obvious you don't know Christ, but that doesn't mean you aren't known of Him. Time will tell . . .