John Calvin's Nazi God.

[Lazy afternoon]

:nono: I love TOL too much. You agreed to not derail threads when you signed up here. If you cannot follow what you agreed to do, you should be held accountable for it regardless of your inability. It amounts to emoting from you, not me. You don't let reason rule your actions. This discussion is about New Age rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ. He deems God a tyrant from ALL Christian perspective, not just Calvinism. As such, I'm addressing his faulty thinking. I'd have thought you were against his rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ. You've shown you don't care about that, but are more concerned with my past interactions with you and how it seemed to hurt you rather than truth. Such is a poor reason for posting on TOL today. You've sided against his rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ, today. Should I applaud? Was that laudable? Were you discerning today? Do you ever wonder that I spend time correcting you too? Your theology has a lot more emoting to it than clear thinking. You were terrible in your thinking today. -Lon (some of this is about the thread, unfortunately a lot of it is correcting your lack of discernment and impropriety )

Yes more pride in your being right when you are wrong.

LA

 

[meshak]

You are so evil

Why are you so vile?

 

[Lon]

Yes more pride in your being right when you are wrong.

LA

There is pride in being right. Only a fool disdains correction according to proverbs. Likewise he/she disdains the corrector for it. This is a Christian board. YOU are against us, not vise-versa. I'm not on a Unitarian/Arian board. I've shaken dust from my sandals. I'm not a contentious dripping faucet according to proverbs. Did you read the TOL statement of faith??? :think: You folks have a lot of excusing behavior. I don't know if you realize that. You are the disrupting, arguing, anti- poster on TOL, not me. Do you realize that? :idunno: The way you contentious folks reason and rationalize is odd. I know when I'm not on my home turf and I know when I am the one that causes the contention. You guys seem to want to white-wash your own bad behavior. It must be part and parcel to your horrible behavior. We welcome it on TOL, BUT you folks never seem to understand you are the usurpers. You are the Hun breaching the walls. You are attacking a Christian stronghold. You do realize that don't you? :think:

There aren't many arians or Unitarians in the world. There are just a few of you. I don't believe you folks think well AND believe you spend more time arguing the bible than reading it. There is NOTHING here but your personal attacks, continuing...for no good reason, just your pride getting in the way and interjecting...yet again, and yet again for no good reason.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

]

Since in the Aramaic language the term "son of man" means "man" then we can understand that in the same language the term "son of God" means "God."

No.

The Son of God is a man, born from Mary.

Jesus was not born the seed of God.

Jesus was born the seed of David.

Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

There is pride in being right. Only a fool disdains correction according to proverbs. Likewise he/she disdains the corrector for it. This is a Christian board. YOU are against us, not vise-versa. I'm not on a Unitarian/Arian board. I've shaken dust from my sandals. I'm not a contentious dripping faucet according to proverbs. Did you read the TOL statement of faith??? :think: You folks have a lot of excusing behavior. I don't know if you realize that. You are the disrupting, arguing, anti- poster on TOL, not me. Do you realize that? :idunno: The way you contentious folks reason and rationalize is odd. I know when I'm not on my home turf and I know when I am the one that causes the contention. You guys seem to want to white-wash your own bad behavior. It must be part and parcel to your horrible behavior. We welcome it on TOL, BUT you folks never seem to understand you are the usurpers. You are the Hun breaching the walls. You are attacking a Christian stronghold. You do realize that don't you? :think:

There aren't many arians or Unitarians in the world. There are just a few of you. I don't believe you folks think well AND believe you spend more time arguing the bible than reading it. There is NOTHING here but your personal attacks, continuing...for no good reason, just your pride getting in the way and interjecting...yet again, and yet again for no good reason.

Look at yourself.

All you have is your interpretations from your religion.

Why do you not argue the scripture like most everyone else does?

It is because the straight meanings of scripture are not understandable by us foolish folk.(in your eyes)

Now you can show from scripture why a man can not be like God as you said.

Your philosophy will not prove anything, especially all the opinions of myself which you speak as if you know my heart, which you do not.

LA

 

[Lon]

Look at yourself.

All you have is your interpretations from your religion.

Why do you not argue the scripture like most everyone else does?

It is because the straight meanings of scripture are not understandable by us foolish folk.(in your eyes)

Now you can show from scripture why a man can not be like God as you said.

Your philosophy will not prove anything, especially all the opinions of myself which you speak as if you know my heart, which you do not.

LA

Um, it has nothing to do with this thread :doh: You are emoting and not thinking again. I suppose there is an organic sense that a thread would flow where ever thought carries, on point or not, but I try not to entertain those. This thread isn't about your desire to be as gods. Start one and invite me in. This isn't that thread. If you want to see how it is done, look at my posts in any Open Theism thread. This board is an Open Theist board. My behavior is such that I know I am the one usurping and I try to treat their subjects with grace though completely against the theology. I am friends with a good many of them but they would tell you where I stand. When we are talking scriptures, I am quite capable. I don't simply spam my whims of any scripture that 'seems' to agree with me. If I'm a Christian, I figure I might have to conform to His image rather than try and conform Him or His scriptures to mine.

 

[God's Truth]

Why are you so vile?

You are evil too because you cut off my sentence where I defended myself.

Lazy Afternoon called me evil things, and whenever someone judges me falsely like that, it shows me what they are. Just like you falsely calling me vile exposes you as a vile person.

 

[meshak]

You are evil too because you cut off my sentence where I defended myself.

Lazy Afternoon called me evil things, and whenever someone judges me falsely like that, it shows me what they are. Just like you falsely calling me vile exposes you as a vile person.

good day, GT.

peace.

 

[God's Truth]

You can not even grasp the simplest things of scripture.

It means that a dead mans spirit is with his bones, not in Heaven.

When they threw the dead man on Elisha bones then he came to life because the Holy spirit was with His bones and that shows that Elisha's spirit was also with his bones.

The idea that your spirit goes to Heaven if you die is false, because it would mean, if it were true, that death brings mens spirits to Heaven and no such idea is in all scripture.

LA

What you say is ridiculous.
Maybe you have been consorting with satanists and mediums?
You know, like you falsely accused me of doing.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

John Calvin also taught that some people were the elect and that they were special to God, while others were fuel for the fire.

EXACTLY!

The Westminister Confession of Faith represents a theological consensus of international Calvinism. There we read that all men come out of the womb "made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil":

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).​

The Calvinists teach that this so-called "universal corruption of mankind" is conveyed to all men by "ordinary generation." If the Calvinists are right then God punishes mankind for doing the very things which He designed them to do:

"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).​

Sir Robert Anderson writes, "As the Westminster Divines express it, 'We are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good.' This theology obviously impugns the righteousness of God in punishing men for their sins. In fact, it represents Him as a tyrant who punishes the lame for limping and the blind for losing their way" (Anderson, Misundersood Texts of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1991], 75).

It is beyond me how anyone can believe the teaching of Calvinism about the way which God creates men. The Calvinists do not worship the same God which I worship because the God of grace would never do what the Calvinists accuse of Him doing.

 

[freelight]

Your 'god' is gonna fry souls in eternal hellfire anyways......

Your 'god' is gonna fry souls in eternal hellfire anyways......

Except for the articulate and poignant posts of the Reformed, this entire thread is flammable.

I dont think Reformed Theology stands upon any logical, sane or rational grounds when you consider all its points 'assumed' in TULIP, and how we've shown those indefensible in the light of conscience, reason, logic and common sense. We've contested it here, in this thread here, and elsewhere. We'll let the readers consider the 'principles' heralded and taught within Calvinism and let their own God-given faculties guide them to see if there be any truth, justice, integrity, honor or LOVE espoused therein.

Its a fractured and self-serving system, while pretending to be 'God-serving' (their 'version' of 'god'), since it pretends 'love', when such 'love' is not equally extended or offered to all people by their own doctrine. It magnifies man's 'total depravity' thereby devaluing him, then denies him 'free will', so that ultimately he is a subject of fate, powerless to alter, change or determine his own destiny, so that in this 'system'....'God' can have TOTAL CONTROL...and by this he is somehow 'glorified'. From all that we've covered in at least these 2 threads referred,...I dont see much appeal for Reformed Theology. I see a doomed theology enslaved to its own predicament and fated eschatology. What do you find appealling about it?

 

[freelight]

God LOVES all "arians" ......................

God LOVES all "arians" ......................

Paul certainly was not Unitarian. Let us look at this verse which speaks of the appearing of the Lord Jesus, our great God and Savior:

"...while we wait for the blessed hope--the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).​

The following passage speaks of us looking for that appearance and the "glory" which we will see will be the Lord Jesus' "glorious body":

"But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body" (Phil.3:20-21).​

The following verses are also speaking of the same "appearance" and the same "glory":

"Beloved, now are we the children of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

"When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory" (Col.3:4).​

So the "glory" in the following verse is referring to the glorious body in which we will see the Lord Jesus when He will appear:

"...while we wait for the blessed hope--the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).​

Paul certainly has more verses that show the clear distinction of God the Father AND his Son Jesus Christ than the few congtroversial verses above, that are part of the proof-text arsenal of trinitarians. A Unitarian view can surely fit into such relational understanding since biblical Unitarians use the Bible as their text-book just as devotedly as trinitarians. Furthermore, in the body of Christ, there is no division, for we are all one in God's Spirit. God has many kids, and they may be any kind of "arian" - lol,..hey that pun was not intended...but whala!

 

[freelight]

well I'll be a son of a gun...................

well I'll be a son of a gun...................

Let us look at the Unitarian interpretation of the meaning of "son of Man" but first let us look how Paul used the term "son of..." when speaking to a sorcerer named Elymas:

"O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?"
(Acts 13:10).​

Of course Paul was not saying that Elymas was a literal son of the devil. Instead, he was saying that the "nature" of Elymas is that of the devil.

So when it is said that the Lord Jesus is the "son of man" what is being said that His nature is that of man. And when it is said that He is the "son of God" what is being said is that His very nature is that of God.

Now let us look at the way that the Unitarians understand the term "son of man" in regard to the Lord Jesus. The say:

"He did not 'toot his own horn,' but instead called himself 'the son of man,' which, in the Aramaic language he spoke, meant 'a man'" (biblicalunitarian.com).​

Since in the Aramaic language the term "son of man" means "man" then we can understand that in the same language the term "son of God" means "God."

We've been thru this before. We are NOW the sons of God, does this make us 'God'? Adam is called the Son of God as well, the first man. Is Adam 'God'? So, this analogy you propose does not necessarily prove your point. Furthermore on your son of devil illustration above,...Jesus called Peter 'Satan' directly! Did that make Peter out to be Satan? - good luck with that one. - He didnt even call him a 'son of satan' but full on 'Satan'. tsk tsk tsk........

 

[Eagles Wings]

Anti-Christians taking over anti-Calvinist thread. Who woulda thunk?

 

[TulipBee]

Except for the articulate and poignant posts of the Reformed, this entire thread is flammable.

Pate melted long time ago.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

It is beyond me how anyone can believe the teaching of Calvinism about the way which God creates men.

Simply because it is Christianity, not just Calvinism. You believe this is true too, that God didn't destroy the world. I'd rather you just read your bible. Whatever that makes you will be Calvinistic enough. We are strawmen and scapegoated enough as it is for things that apply to all of us Christians. That's why, btw, some Calvinists say a few of you aren't Christian. Sometimes it seems a few don't understand when they are arguing against Calvinism, they are literally arguing against Christianity whole; Arminians, Catholics, all. If some can't see that, they literally are historically and theologically ignorant of their own churches.

The Calvinists do not worship the same God which I worship because the God of grace would never do what the Calvinists accuse of Him doing.

It wholly depends what your church denomination teaches, more than a shallow or cursory understanding thinks. Your opinion is noted but forgive me for saying not worth much. What amazes me actually, are one-trick ponies. On other Christian forums, single-issue grandstanding is against rules and receives a ban. Not here, but that doesn't mean it isn't shallow or petty or old. -Lon

 

[freelight]

Judge not lest you be judged.............

Judge not lest you be judged.............

Anti-Christians taking over anti-Calvinist thread. Who woulda thunk?

You're welcome to address the points, rationale and logic I've made in my commentaries so far on the subject, (see this thread and the one previously linked)....this is an open forum. Hurling 'labels' or 'names' in nowise makes an integrous defense of Calvinism. While TULIP propounds itself as a most 'dignified' proposal, its flower wilts due to its stressing some concepts over others, but the tension-points get convoluted in the total context, which de-flowers LOVE and fates man to an eternal hell to which he had no choice in choosing, but gets to FRY in hellfire anyways,....why? well,...God just chose to PASS OVER them, and by no fault or choice of their own. Hows that for LOVE?

And if you're implying that I am anti-Christ, you'll have to take that up with the 'Real God' with your judgment, so I'd be careful of that...for even Jesus taught if you call your brother a 'fool' ( a much lesser crime by comparison)...you'll be in danger of Gehenna.

 

[freelight]

Pate melted long time ago.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

So did your TULIP :crackup:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

We've been thru this before. We are NOW the sons of God, does this make us 'God'? Adam is called the Son of God as well, the first man. Is Adam 'God'? So, this analogy you propose does not necessarily prove your point. Furthermore on your son of devil illustration above,...Jesus called Peter 'Satan' directly! Did that make Peter out to be Satan? - good luck with that one. - He didnt even call him a 'son of satan' but full on 'Satan'. tsk tsk tsk........

Question Freelight.

Do you think the scripture sayeth in vain that the spirit that dwells in us lusteth to envy?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Simply because it is Christianity, not just Calvinism.

No, according to Christianity the Lord Jesus tasted death for every man:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb.2:9).​

According to Calvinism the Lord Jesus only tasted death for some men.

And then to make it worse the Calvinists have the temerity to claim they believe what the Bible says.