Does God Want Children To Be Abused?

[Benjamin]

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.

[snipped] which neglects human responsibility as per their divinely given design along with a demonstration of a carnal mentality that would attempt to cast blame and attribute evil onto an Omnibenevolent God – all for sake of trying to uphold a false doctrine of a Deterministically Sovereign god! Sad…

Deu 32:39
(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.

See now that I am He – learn by your sad human freedom experience, [snipped] that God alone can destroy and your idols can’t help you neglect your responsibilities.

I (God) kill and I make alive, wound and heal, - for His Mercy is as great as His justice and He will punish the rebellious [snipped] Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

 

[DrJamesAch]

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 . . .

So in other words, a person can be saved that doesn't know Christ (as you claim is obvious), but yet you wouldn't "go that far". And your last statement sounds like Universalism: I don't know Christ, but it's possible "may be known of Him". So thus a person can still be saved without having to Christ if Christ knows him?

Astounding. Like I said, Calvinists have to constantly equivocate to maintain credibility.

 

[Benjamin]

Last edited by Dr. Bob; Today at 01:23 AM. Reason: Ben has been around long enough to know you don't use "heresy" word, condemn others arbitrarily as idolaters (not saved) etc.

Why thank you Bob...:thumbs:

I'm so sorry, I thought I was attacking the view not the person similar to this example:

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob
"Salvation: If it's going to be, it's up to me."

Now THAT is the mindset of fallen carnal man who doesn't have saving faith but they are so deceived in their heart that they think they DID do something good.

But, to get past any notion by me that there "could" be some kind of bias and/or hypocrisy in this I’ll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt and humbly repair my post as per “your” upstanding monitory guidelines while being sure to leave enough in as to maintain my full point which I’m afraid you "inadvertently" might have cut out in your endeavor to maintain the high standards of ethical debate on this board. Thanks again. :thumbs:

Originally Posted by Benjamin:

It is a heretical view which would neglect human responsibility as per their divine design and the above demonstrates a carnal mentality "if" it attempts to cast blame and attribute evil onto an Omnibenevolent God – all for sake of trying to uphold a false doctrine of a Deterministically Sovereign god! Sad…

Deu 32:39
(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.

See now that I am He – learn by your sad human freedom experience, in your worship of impotent idols, such as the worship of a manmade theological system, that God alone can destroy and your idols can’t help you neglect your responsibilities.

I (God) kill and I make alive, wound and heal, - for His Mercy is as great as His justice and He will punish the rebellious (“anyone” who denies their God given responsibilities while claiming they have no freedom) for there is no idol (or theological position) which can save them from the True ways of judgment of an Omnibenevolent God:

Deu 32:4

(4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

I feel much better now that we've gotten this problem straightened out.:love2:

 

[DrJamesAch]

Why thank you Bob...:thumbs:

I'm so sorry, I thought I was attacking the view not the person similar to this example:

But, to get past any notion by me that there "could" be some kind of bias and/or hypocrisy in this I’ll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt and humbly repair my post as per “your” upstanding monitory guidelines while being sure to leave enough in as to maintain my full point which I’m afraid you "inadvertently" might have cut out in your endeavor to maintain the high standards of ethical debate on this board. Thanks again. :thumbs:


I feel much better now that we've gotten this problem straightened out.:love2:

So is it also against the rules to tell someone to go play in traffic? I sent Dr Bob this link several days ago (along with numerous other posts) and it's still there. (COMMENT #28

Or how about "Why don't you get in a time machine and set it for Geneva 1558 and dress up as Michael Servetus?" (or rather "go kill yourself"). Comment # 20

 

[Benjamin]

So is it also against the rules to tell someone to go play in traffic? I sent Dr Bob this link several days ago (along with numerous other posts) and it's still there. (COMMENT #28

Or how about "Why don't you get in a time machine and set it for Geneva 1558 and dress up as Michael Servetus?" (or rather "go kill yourself"). Comment # 20

I agree, personal attacks seem to be running wild around here and people don't seem to understand the difference between a personal attack (Ad Hominem) and one on the position and simply fire back as if it was personal and feeling justified in doing so.

One "rule" it would be wise maintain is to be careful not to "offend" the "authorities" that be when doing their... "job" ...here, that might put one over the line. You wouldn't want to give an excuse, if you know what I mean, to justify banning you ...that is if you care.

FYI, Another rule that could quickly get one banned here is to call another a "heretic" directly or even at the position, but I do not believe any true Christian would object to calling an actual heresy a "heresy" such as "if" one was going about to directly attribute evil to God. (yep, been here a while and actually remember a time when directly attributing evil to God would get one banned (because such is an heresy), but that seems to have gone out the door)

Of course, abuse of such a "lethal" rule (such as the dreaded "heresy" word) "could" be taken advantage of by a moderator if he one were of that mindset to do so.

But, I'm sure none of the moderators on this board would do that!

 

[Aaron]

[snipped] which neglects human responsibility as per their divinely given design along with a demonstration of a carnal mentality that would attempt to cast blame and attribute evil onto an Omnibenevolent God – all for sake of trying to uphold a false doctrine of a Deterministically Sovereign god! Sad…

Deu 32:39
(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.

See now that I am He – learn by your sad human freedom experience, [snipped] that God alone can destroy and your idols can’t help you neglect your responsibilities.

I (God) kill and I make alive, wound and heal, - for His Mercy is as great as His justice and He will punish the rebellious [snipped] Deu 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Which, being interpreted, meaneth......Motherrrrrrrrrrr!

 

[MB]

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

Answer is NO!
Exo_21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Deu_22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

As far as children are concerned Christ said;

Mat_18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
We should be mindful of the fact that any harm offends.
MB

 

[The Biblicist]

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?

You claimed to have been a Calvinist and you spew this kind of nonsense. There is a distinct difference between the STATE of salvation and the STATE of a theological mind. One can be totally deceived mentally and yet be saved. You can fall from the TRUTH of grace without falling from the STATE of grace.

I don't know of many children of God at their salvation who even knew who Calvin was much less any doctrine. Teaching comes after salvation (Mt. 28:20).

You can be saved and not know a thing about Calvinism or Arminism. However, if you are saved you were not saved contrary to the doctrine of Grace.

However, for you to spew the nonsense that a lost person who is completely ignorant of any systematic doctrine must believe in any systme of teaching in order to be saved is rediculous. If you don't know the difference then you need to be taken back to sunday school and taught the basics. However, I think you do know the difference and you are intentionally spewing this nonsense because it suits your purpose.

 

[Benjamin]

I don't know of many children of God at their salvation who even knew who Calvin was much less any doctrine. Teaching comes after salvation (Mt. 28:20).

Salvation comes after hearing and genuine faith from your own heart. (Eph 1:13, Rom 10:9)

You can be saved and not know a thing about Calvinism or Arminism. However, if you are saved you were not saved contrary to the doctrine of Grace.

That question begging rhetoric is supposed to logically mean something to prove your "grace alone" claim???


P.S.

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: You is used 4 times in this verse. You'll be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Answer is NO!
Exo_21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Deu_22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

As far as children are concerned Christ said;

Mat_18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
We should be mindful of the fact that any harm offends.
MB

THAT my friend, is the BEST and most direct answer to the question.

If God actually WANTED the devastation that happens, then WHY DOES HE GET ANGRY FOR IT? Look at God's responses all through the OT. God says over and over how many times He has sent the prophets to Israel and they rebelled.

"For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the Lord' Jeremiah 32:30

It doesn't say that God DETERMINED them to act evil, it says the work of THEIR OWN HANDS PROVOKED Him. Yet why would God be angry at someone for doing exactly what He WANTED THEM TO DO and even DETERMINED them to do?

This is the fundamental problem with Calvinism is the failure to understand the character of God. Before God was sovereign over anything, He was loving someone in the Trinity. No parent brings a child into the world and does not WANT their true flourishing. In the Calvinist system, God COULD HAVE determined that everyone love him FREELY, but He didn't WANT TO, and that is a slap in the face to the character of God. The Calvinists can't seem to separate what God WANTS from what He does to punish sin that is the result of a willful violation of His laws. I may have a teenager that I may permit to do things that I don't WANT them to do. But the Calvinists here have clearly demonstrated in post after post that God WANTS people to be raped, molested, tortured and killed, while refusing to accept the clear implications of their theology.

If Calvinism is defined on terms of could do, they have to admit that God COULD HAVE just as easily determined that all men give Him glory and praise His name. But because God determined some to eternal damnation, even though He COULD HAVE done otherwise, then the logical implications of that are that God WANTED to damn them. In this form of thought, since the Calvinist freely admits that there are more sinners going to hell than there are saved going to heaven, (narrow is the gate for the saved, wide is the gate for the sinner), in Calvinism, GOD GETS MORE GLORY BY DAMNING PEOPLE TO HELL BY ETERNAL DECREE THAN HE DOES FROM DETERMINING THAT ALL PEOPLE COULD HAVE FREELY WORSHIPED HIM.

Now in terms of what God WOULD DO; would a loving God WANT to create someone that He has no intention of ever showing any interest in their true flourishing? The 3 person of the Trinity have been loving each other from eternity past before God ruled over anything, and no loving God would create humans made in His image for the sole purpose of determining them to spend eternity in hell for doing something that He preprogrammed them to do in the first place. For God to NEED evil to demonstrate His sovereignty implies that since evil has not always been eternally existent, then God was not perfect, complete or content UNTIL He created the universe. If the Calvinist will admit that the love of God shared within the Trinity from eternity passed was enough to be God, then they can not at the same time claim that God NEEDS to create sin or evil and then predetermine sinners to hell in order to vindicate His sovereignty, for God never had anything to prove to anyone, and if God is STILL not the I AM that He says He is, then we are all at a stale mate because they are is some equally evil force out there that is rivaling God causing Him to do what He does which questions whether or not God was the first cause of anything at all.

The Calvinist view of the character of God is the most damning element of the their belief system.

 

[The Biblicist]

THAT my friend, is the BEST and most direct answer to the question.

If God actually WANTED the devastation that happens, then WHY DOES HE GET ANGRY FOR IT? Look at God's responses all through the OT. God says over and over how many times He has sent the prophets to Israel and they rebelled.

"For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the Lord' Jeremiah 32:30

It doesn't say that God DETERMINED them to act evil, it says the work of THEIR OWN HANDS PROVOKED Him. Yet why would God be angry at someone for doing exactly what He WANTED THEM TO DO and even DETERMINED them to do?

This is the fundamental problem with Calvinism is the failure to understand the character of God. Before God was sovereign over anything, He was loving someone in the Trinity. No parent brings a child into the world and does not WANT their true flourishing. In the Calvinist system, God COULD HAVE determined that everyone love him FREELY, but He didn't WANT TO, and that is a slap in the face to the character of God. The Calvinists can't seem to separate what God WANTS from what He does to punish sin that is the result of a willful violation of His laws. I may have a teenager that I may permit to do things that I don't WANT them to do. But the Calvinists here have clearly demonstrated in post after post that God WANTS people to be raped, molested, tortured and killed, while refusing to accept the clear implications of their theology.

If Calvinism is defined on terms of could do, they have to admit that God COULD HAVE just as easily determined that all men give Him glory and praise His name. But because God determined some to eternal damnation, even though He COULD HAVE done otherwise, then the logical implications of that are that God WANTED to damn them. In this form of thought, since the Calvinist freely admits that there are more sinners going to hell than there are saved going to heaven, (narrow is the gate for the saved, wide is the gate for the sinner), in Calvinism, GOD GETS MORE GLORY BY DAMNING PEOPLE TO HELL BY ETERNAL DECREE THAN HE DOES FROM DETERMINING THAT ALL PEOPLE COULD HAVE FREELY WORSHIPED HIM.

Now in terms of what God WOULD DO; would a loving God WANT to create someone that He has no intention of ever showing any interest in their true flourishing? The 3 person of the Trinity have been loving each other from eternity past before God ruled over anything, and no loving God would create humans made in His image for the sole purpose of determining them to spend eternity in hell for doing something that He preprogrammed them to do in the first place. For God to NEED evil to demonstrate His sovereignty implies that since evil has not always been eternally existent, then God was not perfect, complete or content UNTIL He created the universe. If the Calvinist will admit that the love of God shared within the Trinity from eternity passed was enough to be God, then they can not at the same time claim that God NEEDS to create sin or evil and then predetermine sinners to hell in order to vindicate His sovereignty, for God never had anything to prove to anyone, and if God is STILL not the I AM that He says He is, then we are all at a stale mate because they are is some equally evil force out there that is rivaling God causing Him to do what He does which questions whether or not God was the first cause of anything at all.

The Calvinist view of the character of God is the most damning element of the their belief system.

Your inference is rediculous as you fully well know that God determinately permits evil but never delights in evil (Psa. 76:10). So it is never a question about God delighting in evil and evil things but only a question of determined permission of what he hates in order to rule and overrule to the utlimate good of His people and His glory.

God uses evil to chasten his people and nations. He uses evil to render justice upon the guilty. God never delights in evil but He most certainly DETERMINED to permit it.

 

[InTheLight]

Your inference is rediculous as you fully well know that God determinately permits evil but never delights in evil (Psa. 76:10). So it is never a question about God delighting in evil and evil things but only a question of determined permission of what he hates in order to rule and overrule to the utlimate good of His people and His glory.

God uses evil to chasten his people and nations. He uses evil to render justice upon the guilty. God never delights in evil but He most certainly DETERMINED to permit it.

<SIGH...>

Question posed was not about God permitting or delighting in evil. You are not addressing the OP. Fail.

 

[DrJamesAch]

And on another thread, one poster who unequivocally affirms that God does not love everybody follows up with "But go ahead and preach the gospel to them anyway".

Tell them God loves them and wants their true flourishing even when you don't really believe that.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Ah, the "Gospel" is that Jesus died, was buried and rose again. The unregenerate will not believe (even if someone came back from the dead to tell them); those whom God's holy Spirit has changed will believe it.

Our sole task is to glorify the Grace of God. It is God's task to save His beloved.

Sad that folks confuse the true "Gospel" with the man-made "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" trash of Oral Roberts and his clan.