God: The Micromanager

[quantumfaith]

Preach, do me a quick favor: Please re-read Luke's OP. Maybe you're getting something out of it that I'm not. What Luke presented was, by its verbiage, a settled issue. Where was the room for discussion in Luke's OP?

Then take a look through the rest of the thread, and see who's been doing the most to turn this into a discussion.

Then feel free to come back and make remarks.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Don]

They don't go to Hell for rejecting Him do they? Weren't they already headed there in the first place?

No one goes to hell for rejecting Christ, they simply do not stop their progression toward there by the Only Name under Heaven that can save them. Thus, they receive justice, the same thing they would receive prior to rejecting Him.

- Peace

Why were they headed there in the first place? (serious question, leading to additional discussion)

 

[preacher4truth]

Why were they headed there in the first place? (serious question, leading to additional discussion)

Man isn't already condemned, sinful, deserving of Hell, headed there, and lost prior to the Gospel?

 

[Don]

He casts them into hell while getting no pleasure out of it.

No one's implying that He does. But if you take Winman's post at face value, it only addresses God's love towards His creation, and speaks nothing of the alternative to His grace.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Crass and unbecoming.

Why thank you....:laugh:

 

[quantumfaith]

God is both infinite in love and completely omniscient in justice.

 

[preacher4truth]

God is both infinite in love and completely omniscient in justice.

His justice may well fit better under His omnisapience than His omniscience.

 

[quantumfaith]

His justice may well fit better under His omnisapience than His omniscience.

I don't have my pocket dictionary handy, could you tell what this is?

 

[Don]

Man isn't already condemned, sinful, deserving of Hell, headed there, and lost prior to the Gospel?

Thanks for the clarification. I concede your point: even if we reject the Gospel, we're still on the same path.

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't have my pocket dictionary handy, could you tell what this is?

...Google?

 

[freeatlast]

No one's implying that He does. But if you take Winman's post at face value, it only addresses God's love towards His creation, and speaks nothing of the alternative to His grace.

That is the problem with hyper anything. It always leaves out the other side. God not only loves, but He also hates all who do iniquity according to scripture. Perhaps the problem we have is the attaching of emotion to certain words.

 

[Don]

Quantum - His "all-wiseness," as opposed to "all-knowing." Refers to the wisdom of God.

 

[quantumfaith]

...Google?

:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantum - His "all-wiseness," as opposed to "all-knowing." Refers to the wisdom of God.

Google does not recognize "omnisapience". I guess the teacher in me is always willing to do my best to answer questions. Guess we don't all feel that way. Thanks


Aaaah......homo sapien, now I understand

 

[preacher4truth]

Thanks for the clarification. I concede your point: even if we reject the Gospel, we're still on the same path.

You know, for a while I listened to preachers that we go to hell "for rejecting Christ" and somehow it did not ring true. We were already headed there anyway.

Not a point of argument bro, it's just what it is. This will open some eyes, and hopefully hearts as well.

This is why we MUST preach.

- Peace to you

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Luke is correct that God is micromanaging everything.

Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Jesus said here that a sparrow cannot fall to the ground unless God allows it. So surely he is in complete control of all events that take place. Jesus also said that the very hairs of our heads are ALL numbered, so God's sovereignty extends to the smallest detail.

But what Jesus said next is where Luke and many Calvinists err.

Mat 10:31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

You will see Calvinists exclaim over and over that we are worthless scum all deserving of hell fire, so it is just for God to pass over the majority of mankind and send them to the lake of fire.

But that is not what Jesus said. He said we are of "value". We may be worthless (actually we are not) scum, but we are still of much value to God. This is why Jesus died for all men, not just a few.

Who created man?

Jn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jesus created man. Do you not think the Father cares about Jesus's creation?

God is not a tyrant, he is a loving Father. And a loving Father cares for and feels responsibility for his creation, just as we naturally care and feel responsibility for our children, unless there is something seriously wrong with you.

Luke and a few others are HUGE on God's sovereignty, but they are miniscule on God's love for his own creation. They do not have a balanced view. Jesus did show that all things are in complete control by God, down to the very hairs on our head. But he also said we are more valuable than many sparrows.

Winman, when will you begin to understand & stop misrepresent your brethren....you repeatedly do this & your interpretations of DoG is well completely false.

Personally you should stop posting on here if your going to make inflammatory statements.

You will see Calvinists exclaim over and over that we are worthless scum all deserving of hell fire, so it is just for God to pass over the majority of mankind and send them to the lake of fire.


Who says your sins are as filthy rags & we all deserve death......the Calvinists?


Christ had value for those given Him, no others. Jesus said He came into the world to do the will of His Father, and that will was that He should save all who were given Him (the elect) even before the world began (John 6: 37-39). Jesus came to save HIS PEOPLE from their sins, and He did it (Matt. 1: 21; Rom. 8: 33, 34). He died for His sheep, not for goats (John 10: 15). He died for sons, for the sanctified, for the brethren, for the church, and for the children (Heb. 2: 9-15). He saw the travail of His soul and was satisfied (Isa. 53: 10-12) .

 

[preacher4truth]

Google does not recognize "omnisapience"

Then Google needs to get saved.

Yahoo! it

 

[Don]

Google does not recognize "omnisapience". I guess the teacher in me is always willing to do my best to answer questions. Guess we don't all feel that way. Thanks

Computer hackers are the ones that irritate me the most. They tend to hoard their knowledge, and when you ask for help and learning, they look down their noses and tell you to figure it out for yourself. And then they turn around and whine about "freedom of information."

 

[Don]

You know, for a while I listened to preachers that we go to hell "for rejecting Christ" and somehow it did not ring true. We were already headed there anyway.

Not a point of argument bro, it's just what it is. This will open some eyes, and hopefully hearts as well.

This is why we MUST preach.

- Peace to you

I was originally intending to be petty, and was examining several different angles to argue this from: those that hear and reject the Gospel, those that believe everyone has already heard the Gospel in some form (reference to "Written in the Stars" and those sort of teachings), the fact that I used a present/future tense verb, etc., etc. But in the end, the *only* way to justify my original response (use of "rejection") is to argue from the point of someone hearing the Gospel. Those that hear the Gospel, and continue on the path, have rejected Christ; but, as you point out, they haven't changed their original destination.

Not sure why that should open some eyes. Fits fully with the "if you died today, where would you go?" door-knockin' philosophy.

 

[preacher4truth]

I was originally intending to be petty, and was examining several different angles to argue this from: those that hear and reject the Gospel, those that believe everyone has already heard the Gospel in some form (reference to "Written in the Stars" and those sort of teachings), the fact that I used a present/future tense verb, etc., etc. But in the end, the *only* way to justify my original response (use of "rejection") is to argue from the point of someone hearing the Gospel. Those that hear the Gospel, and continue on the path, have rejected Christ; but, as you point out, they haven't changed their original destination.

Not sure why that should open some eyes. Fits fully with the "if you died today, where would you go?" door-knockin' philosophy.

Well, it won't open the eyes or hearts of the lost. Of the saved? Perhaps some. Maybe someone will be motivated to at least see, peradventure, one person saved by this understanding?