ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

thelaqachisnext

BANNED
Banned
Clete said:
thelaqachisnext,

May I ask for some clarification...

What precisely are you referring to when you use the term "Church of Jesus Christ"?

Are you referring to the familiar denomination or something else? If it's something else, please specifiy what you mean.

I ask because, frankly, your post sounds a bit on the wacky side and I'm just trying to get an idea of where you're coming from on this. (No insult intended, we're all a bit on the wacky side from time to time.)

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I don't recall ever seeing a post from you before so, welcome to TOL! :up:
The one Church He is building that is made of born again (from above) Believers from every tribe and tongue and nation, whose names are recorded in heaven, who have fellowship together because they "Walk in the Light, as He is in the Light, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses them from all sin".

They may meet regularly together in large buildings that are denominational, in small buildings, in prisons, in homes, and may gather by twos, threes, or thousands, in fields, forests, or cathedrals; but they have been born again by the Holy Spirit, and are, all together, the one Church that He is building, since Pentecost.

And we've met in a thread, briefly.
 

Z Man

New member
Poly said:
This statement is the equivilent of somebody saying,

"Sometimes there are instances of little Johnny's dad punishing him, but the truth still remains that the punishment was given to him by his dad." :dizzy:

The verses you posted show clearly that "the truth still remains that the disease was given to them by God" because the examples state clearly why He did it? They all have the same reason..... punishment for disobedience.

As Knight so painstakingly points out, you can't establish that God causes ALL diseases/afflictions using verses showing that He did it when they all have the same "theme" going. A person/nation failed to obey so they were punished.

It's been made so clear so many times for you, your willfull ignorance in refusing to see it almost causes one to be embarrassed for you.


:doh:
Well, there you have it. There are examples of people in the bible diagnosed with a disease and it wasn't because they were being punished. It's all so clear now in this evidence you've given that God causes all diseases. No wonder it doesn't surprise you that Knight wouldn't even want to touch trying to disprove this clearly established proof text. :freak:


Surely I'm reading this wrong.

The only way the argument can be established that God caused diseases for a specific and just reason of disobedience is to prove that He never gives people diseases at all?

:confused:
This makes no sense whatsoever.
Poly,

It is clear in your post that you believe God can inflict disease on people, but just not in every case. Care to explain why, or how? Why can God inflict disease on some people, but not in every case? If God doesn't give a person a disease, who does? And where in the Bible can you support your argument?

Every case in which someone specifically was afflicted with a disease in the Bible, it was made clear that God did it. So why not assume that He is the one behind every case? To assume otherwise, you would need a source other than the Bible to prove your point, therefore making it irrelevant in a Christian debate anyways.

This argument is a lost cause for the OV'ers. The burden of proof lies heavily in the arms of those who do not believe God afflicts people with disease in every case.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Z Man said:
Despite Scriptural evidence, you too agree with Knight that God is not in charge of disease, unless, of course, the 'victim' has done something wrong?

If that is your argument (and this goes for you too Knight), why do 'good' people get sick? While I'm on this subject, Knight says that the verses I presented only illustrate that the wicked are being punished by God in their sickness. Knight, do tell, who are the wicked? Are not all of us guilty of some form of disobediance to God? Thus, God is 'justified' in making anyone sick, correct?

But despite that argument, the basis remains that God inflicts sickness - it is through His command that people get sick, whether it's for some sort of punishment or not. You, however, believe that God only inflicts sickness if the person 'deserves' it. But you fail to show us what Job was guilty of, or the blind man in John 11, or even David's firstborn son, who, immediately after being born, was inflicted with a sickness from God and died.

It's simply irrational to believe in the Bible, yet disagree that God gives people diseases, despite their sins or not. Again, Knight and drbrumly, your argument is irrelevant unless you can prove Biblically that God does not inflict people with diseases, which is impossible, since I've proved Scripturally otherwise.

God bless, fellas.
ZMan, I'm not going to rush out and say God inflicts people with disease. Quite the contrary, sin is what inflicts people with disease. God has set in motion natural laws. Because of those laws, disease comes in all shapes and forms. Does this mean God is inflicting those who have diseases? Hardly. It is natural sorry to tell you. Natural. God doesn't say "oh I'll think I'll inflict ZMan today with a disease because he's a disobeidient sinner. Now can God use this disease to reach out and make good to someone who recognizes God can HEAL? You bet!
 

Z Man

New member
drbrumley said:
ZMan, I'm not going to rush out and say God inflicts people with disease.
Even though the Bible says He does?
Quite the contrary, sin is what inflicts people with disease. God has set in motion natural laws. Because of those laws, disease comes in all shapes and forms. Does this mean God is inflicting those who have diseases? Hardly. It is natural sorry to tell you. Natural. God doesn't say "oh I'll think I'll inflict ZMan today with a disease because he's a disobeidient sinner. Now can God use this disease to reach out and make good to someone who recognizes God can HEAL? You bet!
No one is arguing that diseases exist because of sin; the argument is whether or not God is the one who allows/afflicts/causes people to contract diseases. Does God afflict some people, while others just 'get it' from out of the blue? Or does He afflict people in every case? Since people are born into sin, are they also born with diseases, thus they get sick whenever something 'sparks' the ever-present disease (as it seems you are trying to say in your last post)?

The Bible states clearly that God is the one who is in charge of disease.

Exodus 4:11
So the Lord said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?

Ex 23:25
So you shall serve the Lord your God, and He will bless your bread and your water. And I will take sickness away from the midst of you.

De 7:15
And the Lord will take away from you all sickness, and will afflict you with none of the terrible diseases of Egypt which you have known, but will lay them on all those who hate you.

John 11:4
When Jesus heard that, He said, "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it."
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
thelaqachisnext said:
The one Church He is building that is made of born again (from above) Believers from every tribe and tongue and nation, whose names are recorded in heaven, who have fellowship together because they "Walk in the Light, as He is in the Light, and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses them from all sin".

They may meet regularly together in large buildings that are denominational, in small buildings, in prisons, in homes, and may gather by twos, threes, or thousands, in fields, forests, or cathedrals; but they have been born again by the Holy Spirit, and are, all together, the one Church that He is building, since Pentecost.

And we've met in a thread, briefly.
It seems you think it is appropriate to speak in code language. Why?
 

thelaqachisnext

BANNED
Banned
Clete said:
It seems you think it is appropriate to speak in code language. Why?
What do you mean?
How about Bible language?
What part do you think is code?

When born again Believers meet together in small or large groups they are called ‘churches’; but together, all born again Believers -living and dead- are that one Church that He is building that the gates of hell shall never prevail against.

Though many meet regularly under names of men -‘Luther‘, ‘Calvin‘, and so forth- and under the names of their pet doctrines -‘Baptist‘, ‘Pentecostal‘, and so forth- there is only one Church of the LORD Jesus Christ; and the only way to be in it is to be born again, from above, and those who are born again know it, and can honestly fellowship together no matter what name they meet to worship under.


1Cr 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

And the Church is the 'house' of God, in which the Father dwells, in a measure of promise, since Pentecost.

Jesus is building a new house for the Father to indwell, as the first house is in ruin and the Father will not dwell in it since the fall.

Now if you really are not familiar with the oracles given to the Jews, then that may be 'code' to you, but Jesus is the Firstborn of the New Man race in which the glory of the Father will dwell, in the end, when the 'house' of the 'New Man' is finished.

The first 'house' is the race of Adam; the New 'house' is the race of the New Man, Jesus Christ the Firstborn, and all we who are adopted in His one spirit from the dead 'Adam' (man), spirit are that 'New House', 'New Man', the 'Church of God' in which the Father's glory will dwell 'all in all' when the Son delivers the kingdom to the Father that He came to ransom -after He regenerates it.



And Calvin as an 'ism' does not speak according to the oracles as given to the Jews, but according to pagan Greek religious ideas; and therefore has no light in it.

The entire Word is about the generations of Adam and the fall and redemption in the New Man, and "Who, what, when, where, why, and how", is the teaching from from Genesis to Revelation.

Calvin doesn't touch the message in the oracles, as to all it's isms; though there are those in that ism who are truly born again (I know some) but they cannot debate the message of the Word: it is 'sealed' up, out of their understanding.
 
Last edited:

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Z Man said:
Knight,

You can try and justify those scriptures to agree with your views, but the point of it all still stands that GOD is the one who is in control of disease. The woman you talked about in the beginning of this thread did not just get cancer without God knowing about it or ordaining it.

Some of the verses I posted may have been examples of God punishing people, but the truth still remains that the disease was given to them by God. Other examples of people being diagnosed with a disease who weren't being punished are Job, David's firstborn, and the blind guy in John 11, all of whom you failed to talk about in your critique, which doesn't surprise me.

Until you can prove that God does not give people diseases period, regardless if they were being punished or not, then your argument is moot.

Jesus, God with a face, came to oppose sin, sickness, disease, demons, evil. He does not affirm it as God's will or He would be opposing the Father. The point of Jn. 9 (blind) was that the blindness was not caused by God or the sin of the parents. Jesus corrected the wrong views. God allowed it and used it as an opportunity to show His power. This is a far cry from it being caused or decreed. Take off your filters.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Z Man said:
Poly,

It is clear in your post that you believe God can inflict disease on people, but just not in every case. Care to explain why, or how? Why can God inflict disease on some people, but not in every case? If God doesn't give a person a disease, who does? And where in the Bible can you support your argument?

Every case in which someone specifically was afflicted with a disease in the Bible, it was made clear that God did it. So why not assume that He is the one behind every case? To assume otherwise, you would need a source other than the Bible to prove your point, therefore making it irrelevant in a Christian debate anyways.

This argument is a lost cause for the OV'ers. The burden of proof lies heavily in the arms of those who do not believe God afflicts people with disease in every case.

We live in a fallen, sin-cursed, demonic world. We also live in a natural world where antibiotic resistant bugs are out of control due to man's abuse of nature. A cold virus gives a person a cold. God does not give people the common cold.
 

Z Man

New member
godrulz said:
Jesus, God with a face, came to oppose sin, sickness, disease, demons, evil. He does not affirm it as God's will or He would be opposing the Father.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to one.
The point of Jn. 9 (blind) was that the blindness was not caused by God or the sin of the parents.
John 9 states that the man's blindness wasn't the cause of his parents' sin, but where does it say anything about it not being the cause of God? That too is obviously your opinion, not the Bible's.
God allowed it and used it as an opportunity to show His power. This is a far cry from it being caused or decreed. Take off your filters.
Take off yours!

You believe that God did not decree the man's blindness in John 9, but instead that He allowed it. How do you reconcile John 9:1-3 with Exodus 4:11?


John 9:1-3
Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.

Exodus 4:11
So the Lord said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, OR THE BLIND? Have not I, the Lord?


You need to get your theology straight, or be prepared to denounce the Bible as truth.
 

kratus1

New member
Questions?

Questions?

Hi all,

As being new to the forum, this is an interesting quagmire of disease. What you need to ask yourself is "what questions do I need to ask first?" and ........"Are they the right one?" Through a dozen pages of debate, I have not once seen an acknowledgement of "where" and "when" sin originated......"What did the fall do?" Half of your answers will be found there.

"Where"
"When"
"What"
-------------start here, make sure the foundation of sin is understood.
 

Z Man

New member
godrulz said:
We live in a fallen, sin-cursed, demonic world. We also live in a natural world where antibiotic resistant bugs are out of control due to man's abuse of nature. A cold virus gives a person a cold. God does not give people the common cold.
You sound like one of those scientists who state the obvious in order to denounce the supernatural reasons for anything. You know, those guys on the Discovery and History Channel who come up with all kinds of ways to explain how stuff happens in order to disprove the existence of God. For example, here you state the obvious that people get colds from a virus. Well no duh, but that doesn't disprove that God creates the virus and directs its path. You think viruses just 'appeared' after the fall from outta nowhere? I guess next you're going to tell us that a hurricane force wind is what seperated the Red Sea, not God....

:rolleyes:
 

kratus1

New member
Z Man said:
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to one.

John 9 states that the man's blindness wasn't the cause of his parents' sin, but where does it say anything about it not being the cause of God? That too is obviously your opinion, not the Bible's.

Take off yours!

You believe that God did not decree the man's blindness in John 9, but instead that He allowed it. How do you reconcile John 9:1-3 with Exodus 4:11?


John 9:1-3
Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.

Exodus 4:11
So the Lord said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, OR THE BLIND? Have not I, the Lord?

--Use caution with application, just to be clear. I believe the Lord is acknowledging His hand in creation. He has made all things. Sin, resulting from the fall of man, birthed death and illness which God allowed. Lest we forget His omiscience, He knows very well who will be born with what.[/B]

You need to get your theology straight, or be prepared to denounce the Bible as truth.
 

kratus1

New member
What needs to be asserted is that this question of "God causing" or "God controlling" diseases is an easy avenue for any genuine christian to question God's sovereignty? And that question is "If God is so loving, why does He allow pain and suffering?

If we followed everyone's course here, we would be asking, "Why does God cause pain and suffering?" We may very well take responsibility for the Cross, but we are deceived away from the reality that the 'enemy' [satan] was given "room to breathe" on this earth. Paul referred to him as "prince of the air of darkness" and "god of this world."
If we, as christians, understood all other claimed christian doctrinal systems, we would realize how close we are to deism, fundamentalism and traditional mormonism.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Z Man said:
Despite Scriptural evidence, you too agree with Knight that God is not in charge of disease, unless, of course, the 'victim' has done something wrong?

If that is your argument (and this goes for you too Knight), why do 'good' people get sick?
The Fall.:duh:
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Z Man said:
You sound like one of those scientists who state the obvious in order to denounce the supernatural reasons for anything. You know, those guys on the Discovery and History Channel who come up with all kinds of ways to explain how stuff happens in order to disprove the existence of God. For example, here you state the obvious that people get colds from a virus. Well no duh, but that doesn't disprove that God creates the virus and directs its path. You think viruses just 'appeared' after the fall from outta nowhere? I guess next you're going to tell us that a hurricane force wind is what seperated the Red Sea, not God....

:rolleyes:


God can and does intervene supernaturally. The Red Sea is such an example. If I stab someone in the heart with a knife, is that caused and directed by God? Satan, not God, comes to rob/kill/destroy. God is not the only moral agent in the universe. Just because He controls/causes some things, does not mean that He micromanages all things. If I eat too much McDonald's, is God directly responsible for my heart attack? He gave me a heart and created cows, but He did not make the car and drunk driver that killed a child. Your hyper-sovereignty, hyper-determinism relies on proof texts (you are one of the worst posters for proof texting without looking at other translations or the context), but it does not lead to a biblical conclusion.

Why do some people get AIDS, but not other people? Does choice and lifestyle play any part? Why do some people get meds and are cured of malaria, while others die from it? Is God the only factor in the universe? Is God responsible for heinous evil because He created parameters that made it possible, but not necessary?

If someone kills themselves with a gun or CO, does that mean it was God's desire, intent, will, purpose? Why does He hold people responsible for sin against Him and others, if He is causing or determining it?

Does God arbitrarily send some to hell whom He could save, and save others whether they want to be or not?

Is self-evident freedom, responsibility/accountability an illusion (compatibilism is not a defensible solution to determinism/free will)?
 

thelaqachisnext

BANNED
Banned
kratus1 said:
What needs to be asserted is that this question of "God causing" or "God controlling" diseases is an easy avenue for any genuine christian to question God's sovereignty? And that question is "If God is so loving, why does He allow pain and suffering?

If we followed everyone's course here, we would be asking, "Why does God cause pain and suffering?" We may very well take responsibility for the Cross, but we are deceived away from the reality that the 'enemy' [satan] was given "room to breathe" on this earth. Paul referred to him as "prince of the air of darkness" and "god of this world."
If we, as christians, understood all other claimed christian doctrinal systems, we would realize how close we are to deism, fundamentalism and traditional mormonism.

That is the point of the fall: Adam's body was created from this creation's (earth's) elements, and so was of it; and that body was breathed into by the Creator (who called Himself, literally; "Breath Who [or, 'That'] Breathes); and the Adamkind was given the authority, at the beginning, of high king over all that was in this present creation (Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 8), under YHWH, who ruled the heavens but gave earth to the sons of Adam;
"The heaven, [even] the heavens, [are] the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of Adam [men]"; Psa 115:16 .

But now -since the fall- we do not see all things [of this present creation], under the dominion of the race [sons] 'of' Adam, but the Redeemer -'Kinsman' [YHWH of hosts -in the second Person] has come in human flesh of the New Creation to be our Ransom and our Avenger and to take the kingdom back for the glory of the Father to indwell again, in His fullness.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.": Satan gained dominion at the fall of all that Adam had been given; but the promise was immediate that the Seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent; the 'head' being the fallen Cherub.

No woman has seed, so a New Man [human] was promised to come through the woman and be of the woman [to have the right as Kinsman], who would be the deliverer: through the Book we see the promise unfold, and we now fully understand it

At the fall, the serpent was used by the rebel Cherub to gain the dominion that Adam was given, so the Father's presence of glory departed, and this entire present creation became subject to sin and death. Corruption entered, and our race's firstborn died spiritually, as son of God; and all we, who are his seed came into this world in that state of uncleanness, subject to sin and death; and dead, as sons of God.

The redemption is about the ransom of the kingdom and it's citizens by cleansing and adoption and regeneration, by a Redeemer-Kinsman/Avenger, who came forth 'in the fullness of time' to be our once, for all [in Adam -'whosoever will'], acceptable offering for sin.

Calvinism is totally not about the great Ransom of all in Adam [whosoever will], but is a mixed up pagan Greek/Babylonian philosophy type of religion, and as I said, and do believe, is a daughter of the great harlot; for it ruled with the sword over all it could get under it in this present kingdom when it had the power to do so: just as the Roman church has done whenever it had the power to do so.

America is about that separation from being ruled with the sword by a 'church', and I believe that the church that rules in this present kingdom of darkness by the sword, and which has the blood of the saints on it's hands, is no different from Islam, and will suffer the same judgment that Islam will suffer; therefore He is always calling His people to 'come out' of the great harlot -and come out of her daughters.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Some Contructive Criticism

Some Contructive Criticism

thelaqachisnext said:
What do you mean?
How about Bible language?
What part do you think is code?
What part isn't code? Do you get some sort of pleasure from having to explain virtually every thing you say? Notice that you didn't find it to be an unexpected or unusual question I asked about what you meant by "The Church of Jesus Christ". That alone should be enough to demonstrate that your manner of speaking is cryptic.

Why was it necessary for me to have to ask you what you meant by what should be a simple term like "The Church of Jesus Christ"? I'll tell you why. It's because you choose to intentionally speak in a vernacular that is almost completely foreign to common usage. This is why people's eyes glaze over inside of three sentences of your posts. You will no doubt want to chalk that up to a lack of spirituality on their part but it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that people lose interest after asking themselves "I wonder what he means by that phrase?" for the sixth time inside of a single paragraph. Your words are loaded chock full of meaning that is not apparent in the words themselves. No one has any hope at all of understanding half of what you are talking about without spending unknown numbers of hours getting familiar with your vernacular. A process which should be entirely unnecessary.

Jesus spoke in code but he did so for a reason. You deny even speaking in code and so can claim no such reason similar to what Jesus was doing. In short, there is no good reason for you to show up on a public forum and speak about theology in terms that no one will be able to understand clearly. You are intentionally sowing confusion and I'd bet my left arm that you claim some sort of spiritual victory when someone gets fed up and blows you off. It's prideful and should be avoided. If you cannot convey your message in such a way as can be understood by the audience then it isn't the audience's fault, but yours.

Now that just my two cents and I don't really care what you do with it, if anything. All I'm getting at really is that if you want to have fruitful conversations with people you have to talk to them in a language they are going to understand. Otherwise people are going to blow you and your message off as the ranting of a wacko. The way you present you ideas right now, amounts to little more than just a bunch of words and nothing at all more than your opinions. They cannot be established because you share little or no common ground upon which communication can take place. You will persuade no one, you will teach no one, you will only be wasting your time because without communication, discussion forums sort of lose something.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Last edited:

Grandy

New member
Clete said:
Now that just my two cents and I don't really care what you do with it, if anything. All I'm getting at really is that if you want to have fruitful conversations with people you have to talk to them in a language they are going to understand. Otherwise people are going to blow you and your message off as the ranting of a wacko. The way you present you ideas right now, amounts to little more than just a bunch of words and nothing at all more than your opinions. They cannot be established because you share little or no common ground upon which communication can take place. You will persuade no one, you will teach no one, you will only be wasting your time because without communication, discussion forums sort of lose something.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Amen Clete, my thoughts exactly! I was just sharing with Poly last night that some of these folks on here using their $10.00 words and phrases frankly bore me.
I totally understood what you have just said, it made total sense and I agree 100%.

Why is it so many so called religious folks think they have to talk that way. Bob Enyart is probably about the most intelligent man I have ever heard speaking of spiritual things and I have always been able to understand and follow his train of thought. Why do some folks feel a need to talk in (as you put it) code?

Lola

;)
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Urizen said:
Do you believe though that God posesses the power to micromanage all things should he at a particular moment so desire?

Yes. He can override free will by brute force, but He usually does not. Hitler and the masses going to hell show that God allows significant freedom, but with consequences. God is omnipotent. This does not mean that He can do logically contradictory things, nor does He always exercise all the power that He could.

God can and does intervene supernaturally when He needs to or wants to. He will bring His project/purposes to pass, but He does not need to control every moral/mundane choice to do so. I am not a sock puppet. God does not have to be directly involved when I tie my shoes, chose vanilla over chocolate, have sex, urinate, etc.

God's sovereign rule is providential vs meticulous control. He macro vs micromanages, but He can intervene when He wants to for a higher good. He is creative and responsive, not a cosmic control freak.
 
Top