The Tree and Garden

[reformedbeliever]

Since you feel warranted in prescribing to me how you would like me to respond, I recommend you apply that same standard to yourself and quit misrepresenting the stated beliefs of others which is synonymous to your very own complaint, telling someone what they believe.

However, for the record I didn't tell you what you believe I used the qualifier "apparently" which is not conclusive and not emphatic, thus falling short of telling your what you believe.

The long version of "no I didn't really have anything to add."

 

[reformedbeliever]

made us "subject" to vanity, but now willingly. In other words He did not will us to sin.

Its not His will that any would perish, but they do, don't they, "why", because man was made "subject" to vanity.

If God can allow sin and remain Sovereign, why can't He allow repentance and remain Sovereign???

BBob,

Well Bob, I think you already know this... but I'll say it anyway.
2 Peter 3:9 was writen to the elect. None of the elect will perish....... He is not willing that one would.
I like your new picture a lot better than the previous one....... although it was a great looking picture too! :thumbs:

 

[Jarthur001]

What's the difference if he has everyone who doesn't agree with him on ignore? What kind of answers is he looking to read, only those he agrees with?

It was just so that you would post another post just like this one.

Really WB if it is such a big deal...move to another thread. I saw it as starting a thread. You do not. Get over it...and go on. Its really very simple

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

The long version of "no I didn't really have anything to add."

And the short version of "No, I am not interested in applying my own standards to myself and I plan on misrepresenting the stated thoughts and beliefs of others".
Save the drama and let's stay on topic.

 

[Jarthur001]

God's decree and desire that there be sin.

good post.. :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

now you are getting it.

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by webdog
God's decree and desire that there be sin.
good post.. :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

not you are getting it.

So, that makes God the author of sin??

BBob,

 

[russell55]

I will never say that God sins or desires us to sin, especially when God commands us to be holy as He is holy.
What I'm saying is that it was all part of God's plan of redemption. God could have prevented Adam's sin, but He didn't. He had a purpose and it was carried out. We are the clay, He is the potter. He can carry out His purposes any way that He desires, whether I am able to understand it or not.

Exactly. And you know what? I think most nonCalvinists would agree that God could have prevented Adam's sin, but he didn't, and that he had a reason (or purpose) for not preventing it. And most Calvinist would agree that sin enters creation by way of God's permission. Which means there isn't much difference between the two systems in the purposefulness of God's allowing sin, or in the means by which sin comes into creation.

The real difference in the two systems is the reason God doesn't prevent sin. The nonCalvinist usually says that God didn't prevent sin because he wanted humankind to have free choice. The Calvinist says he didn't prevent sin because wanted to redeem humankind.

 

[reformedbeliever]

And the short version of "No, I am not interested in applying my own standards to myself and I plan on misrepresenting the stated thoughts and beliefs of others".
Save the drama and let's stay on topic.

Alex....... is that really your last name?

Why don't you show me where I misrepresented anyone? If you will quote me please?

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, you are doing just fine.

People who really understand what they are writing about should be able to express themselves simply. There is as much actual substance in your posts as in anyone else's here.

Thank you.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Alex....... is that really your last name?

Why don't you show me where I misrepresented anyone? If you will quote me please?

So having had a collapse in your argument you are left with idle chit-chat? Is this what you have been reduced to? Seriously? Does the prick of your theological opponent's sword so easily wound that you scramble for ad hominem pursuits so immediately?

Again let's go back to the topic. Steady yourself man and stay focused.

 

[Brother Bob]

Well Bob, I think you already know this... but I'll say it anyway.
2 Peter 3:9 was writen to the elect. None of the elect will perish....... He is not willing that one would.
I like your new picture a lot better than the previous one....... although it was a great looking picture too! :thumbs:

So, why did he admonish them as below, if they would all be saved????

2 Peter 14: Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15: And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17: Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

I know what you will say, it does not mean their Salvation, but I think it does. We all going to die anyway, regardless of what we do.
Thanks for the compliment on the pic! :wavey:

BBob,

 

[reformedbeliever]

So having had a collapse in your argument you are left with idle chit-chat? Is this what you have been reduced to? Seriously? Does the prick of your theological opponent's sword so easily wound that you scramble for ad hominem pursuits so immediately?

Again let's go back to the topic. Steady yourself man and stay focused.

Oh, I'm steady and focused. My question about your last name was not an ad hominem pursuit. If it is a sore subject, I'll not ask you again. Sorry.
I'm steady and focused. I'm still waiting upon the proof of your accusation. Don't accuse someone without having the ability to back it up. C'mon man, stay focused. Steady now. Lets get back to the topic as soon as you substantiate your accusations. Thank you.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

The real difference in the two systems is the reason God doesn't prevent sin. The nonCalvinist usually says that God didn't prevent sin because he wanted humankind to have free choice. The Calvinist says he didn't prevent sin because wanted to redeem humankind.

russell, feel free to show me where someone stated EMPHATICALLY, DIRECTLY of IMPLICITLY that "THE REASON" God didn't prevent sin is that He wanted humankind to have free choice.

First of all, humanity, before Adam sinned already have volitional capacity so God didn't need to allow sin to establish that reality. It already existed.

Secondly, and again, I have yet to read anyone stated the REASON God allowed sin was so mankind could have free choice.

I have read that because man already had freedom to choose God incorporated that choice to sin as part of the plan to provide redemption for mankind.

But what you have said is an extreme departure and very shadowy (at best) representation of the position of the non-Calvinist I have read here so far. I suggest you go back and review their statements on this topic and reconsider your characterization of their position. Your statement simply does not reflect what they have said.

 

[russell55]

So, that makes God the author of sin??

BBob,

It depends on what you mean by author of sin.

If, by author of sin, you mean that God is the agent or the doer of the evil deed, then no, God is not the author of sin.

If, by author of sin, you mean that God decided to permit sin, knowing that by his permission it would certainly come about, and that he had a reason for deciding to allow it rather than prevent it, then, then yes, God is the author of sin.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Oh, I'm steady and focused. My question about your last name was not an ad hominem pursuit. If it is a sore subject, I'll not ask you again. Sorry.
I'm steady and focused. I'm still waiting upon the proof of your accusation. Don't accuse someone without having the ability to back it up. C'mon man, stay focused. Steady now. Lets get back to the topic as soon as you substantiate your accusations. Thank you.

I used the word "apparently" the qualifiers removes my statement as an emphatic one. Are we at the point you are having to be lead to a dictionary to understand the use of the word apparently? When one uses the word apparently it means "to seem". It isn't a statement of certainty. Accusations are statements of certainty.
Now, back to the topic.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

It depends on what you mean by author of sin.

If, by author of sin, you mean that God is the agent or the doer of the evil deed, then no, God is not the author of sin.

If, by author of sin, you mean that God decided to permit sin, knowing that by his permission it would certainly come about, and that he had a reason for deciding to allow it rather than prevent it, then, then yes, God is the author of sin.

russell,

The reminds me of the man who asked: Does this car belong to your wife?

And the man answer: If by "your wife" you mean the woman I am married to, no.

But if you mean by "your wife" the woman I have been seeing when the woman I am married to is gone", yes.

"Author of sin" only has one meaning. God is not the author of sin. At best this is a manipulation of words and a destruction of their genuine meaning and use in order for one to be able construct an intellectual facade in the attempt to produce a sentence to satisfy the wish to say something that is not true as if it were.

 

[Brother Bob]

Russell; 55
If, by author of sin, you mean that God decided to permit sin, knowing that by his permission it would certainly come about, and that he had a reason for deciding to allow it rather than prevent it, then, then yes, God is the author of sin.

Ok, now maybe you can answer my question.
1. You say that God allows sin, and I am sure you still believe He is Sovereign.

2. Why can God not allow "repentance" and still be sovereign???

BBob,

 

[reformedbeliever]

So, why did he admonish them as below, if they would all be saved????

I know what you will say, it does not mean their Salvation, but I think it does. We all going to die anyway, regardless of what we do.
Thanks for the compliment on the pic! :wavey:

BBob,

You are welcome brother. I'm glad to see you looking good. It wasn't that long ago I was praying for your life. Thanks be to God that we don't have to worry about this life huh? I hope you are feeling as good as you look.

To me Bob, this is simply God's way of saying to be at peace with ourselves and God's promises. To stay to the task at hand, knowing that God will accomplish all that He promises. Of couse I believe in eternal security.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I used the word "apparently" the qualifiers removes my statement as an emphatic one. Are we at the point you are having to be lead to a dictionary to understand the use of the word apparently? When one uses the word apparently it means "to seem". It isn't a statement of certainty. Accusations are statements of certainty.
Now, back to the topic.

Ok, then prove why it is apparent to you that I misrepresent someone or anyone. A quote would be helpful. Again, don't make apparent accusations without having the ability to back them up.

 

[Brother Bob]

To me Bob, this is simply God's way of saying to be at peace with ourselves and God's promises. To stay to the task at hand, knowing that God will accomplish all that He promises. Of couse I believe in eternal security.

I know you do, but sure a lot of admonishing for the children that are the "elect".

My health is pretty good now, have blockage in front of heart but they can't put a stint in it. But man, I thank God everyday for what I do have health wise and salvation.

BBob,