Steve_S

Discussion on Predestination and Election

44 posts in this topic

Quote

Before I address the later part of your response to me, I need to re-post this because I already showed how you discredited your understanding of Hebrew in another debate.  You were using common usage of a word to defend that definition in a single verse, and when I did the same thing with a Greek word that worked against your argument, you then said those who use common usage show they have no understanding of the original language.  I already addressed it here, so I am not going to write it all out again.    

You are trying to compared two dissimilar things.  In the previous debate, we were debating over the usage of the word “ezer.”   It means, helper.  You were arguing that “ezer” meant “helper” in the sense that it made wife as inferior and subordinate to her husband.  I pointed out that the overwhelming number of usages of that word didn’t reflect ezer to mean that the helper is inferior to the one being helped.  I noted that Bible says God is our “ezer,”  He is our “Helper.” Clearly, He is not inferior to us, as our Helper. I was point out that in nearly every context, it was the same thing.   I wasn’t violating context.  I was appealing to the majority contextual usage.  And by majority, I mean there may be only one or two times it was used in a different way, but those exceptions would not be sufficient to argue that “helper” in regards to wives means that they are inferior.   You were reading into the word, “ezer”  the meaning you wanted it to have in order to push your view that husbands/men are superior to women/wives.

Quote

I also showed how your argument about the word translated to perfect is exactly the same with regard to Noah as Lucifer.  The only difference is that Noah was perfect in his generations and Lucifer was perfect in his ways.  Neither were perfect inside and out.  You penciled that into the text.  It never states that, and the fact they both use the same Hebrew word proves you don't know what you are talking about.  Your context argument doesn't work.  It is not legitimate at all.  If the word means what you claim about Lucifer, it means the same thing about Noah.  If it doesn't mean Noah was perfect inside and out, neither does it mean that about Lucifer.  You are trying your best to make out like you are some expert in Hebrew, but you clearly are not.  You might fool others with that tactic, but you won't fool or intimidate me.  I can see right through you.   

Here is why your comparison between this debate and the other debate, fails.  Here we are dealing, necessarily with the majority usage in parallel contexts.   Now, we are dealing two specific and dissimilar contexts.   The word, “tahmim” means, “entire,” “complete,” “whole.”  The root is “tam,” which means perfect. It’s also where the word “thummim” (perfections) comes from in Exodus 28:30 with respect to the “urim” and “thummim.”   Tahmmim is a non-numerical plural and would be literally translated as “perfections”  in English.   When you combine the non-numerical intensive plural with the fact that the actual meaning of the word is “whole,” or “complete”  you arrive at understanding that the object is fully perfect in every aspect.   It is a full orbed perfection that leaves nothing out.    So yes, it means perfection inwardly and outwardly.  

As for Noah and Lucifer, the contextual argument is paramount.  And yes it does work.  Because while the same word appears in both texts, the usage of the word is different.   You cannot simply, across-the-board, assign meanings to the same word used in different contexts.   “Tahmim,” in both passages, is accompanied by modifiers.  Those modifiers are different in both texts and they “modify” how we look at the word usage and thus how we understand tahmmim in both cases.    Lucifer is perfect in all his ways.   The word usage there indicates that he was wholly perfect in every part of his existence.  But with Noah, it says he was perfect in his generation.    So here, the word usage is totally different.   Noah is not perfect in all His ways. The word usage speaks to his integrity, his uprightness, and the context bears that out.   The modifier,  “in his generation”  lets us know that Noah wasn’t sinless, but that Noah, comparison to those around Him, was upright, that he walked with the Lord.   Sorry, but your argument here doesn’t wash.  It simply doesn’t pan out. 

Quote

There are other issues to address, and most of them I will respond to in another post, but I am going to quickly deal with your silly Genesis argument about how everything was very good, so that means Adam couldn't have been created to sin down the road. 

No, that wasn’t my argument.  My argument, based on your claims, is if Lucifer was created with sin and if Adam was created with sin, and if God created sin, then when God called all that he had made “very good”  then it would include sin. You have God creating man with sin and calling that creation of sin “very good.” 

Quote

I never claimed he was given a sin nature before the fall. 

You didn’t say it in so many words, but that is in fact, where your argument leads.  According to what you have been saying, Adam and Eve were not created perfect.  That means they were created with sin, as the Bible doesn’t teach any kind of non-sinful, moral imperfection.  You’re either a sinner or you’re not.  There is no intermediate spiritual condition.

Quote

    I said he was created to sin down the road. 

Yes, which you have never actually proven. 

Quote

God knew what he would do from the moment Adam entered His mind.  He hadn't sinned at the moment of his creation, so he was very good. 

But he had sin in him, according to you, and God called sin, “very good.”  Sorry, but being a sinner doesn’t start at the point of committing your first sin.  We are born sinners, we are born separated from God and as such are deserving of Hell even before we commit a single sin. 

Quote

God created the serpent too, and that was part of his very good creation.  The serpent beguiled Eve to eat the forbidden fruit before the fall.  How could the serpent be very good when he had it in him to sin?  Your argument is ludicrous.  That is why I shrugged it off.  It isn't worth responding to.

The snake was not created to sin. An animal cannot sin, because animals don’t make moral decisions between right and wrong.  Animals operate off of instinct.   The snake was possessed by Satan, or Satan took the form of a serpent, either way, it doesn’t really help your argument about Adam.

 
Quote

Later in Genesis, God says it repented him that he made man.  Does that mean God didn't know man would develop a mind that was on evil continuously when he created man?  If it does, he is not all knowing, so how could he repent for making man?  It says Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, giving us the impression God was about to wipe out his entire creation, and suddenly noticed one man that was perfect in his generations, and that made the difference.  God was never going to wipe out his entire creation.  He knew Noah would be used to save mankind and the animals too.  If that was not the case, God is not all knowing.  Much of what is written is for our benefit and understanding.  He relates to us on our level.  Until you understand that, you will never understand scripture, and that is much of what I see is lacking in you. 

God was grieved over mankind and the Bible relates that grief to us in a way that we can understand it.  God didn’t “repent” in the sense that we “repent,” because God didn’t make a mistake or error to repent of.

The problem is that you are trying, as I have said before, to confuse foreknowledge with predestination of an object.   God knowing man will sin, doesn’t mean that God wanted or ordained that sin to occur.  It doesn’t mean that God created man for the express purpose of committing the sin He foreknew. 

 

Quote

Now, lets deal with Romans chapter 9.  I knew what you would say before I ever started discussing this chapter, which is why I took the time to begin at the first verse, rather than jumping down to the part that was dealing directly with the topic we are discussing.  The answer you and others like to bring to rebut my argument always centers around your contention I do not understand the bigger picture of what is being discussed.  Jacob and Esau do represent two nations.  I will not deny that, and I fully understand that is the bigger picture that is being discussed, but it still effects personal salvation.  Jacob and Esau did represent two nations according to God's sovereign will, but that decision by God also effected them on a personal level.  It is like the story of Judas, the betrayer of Jesus.  The main emphasis in this story is not the fact Judas would hang himself and be eternally damned, yet that is what happened.  His being created to be the betrayer of the Lord meant he would be condemned.  In another instance, Paul, being a chosen vessel to write most of the New Testament, led to his being saved.  The story of his conversion wasn't primarily about his inheritance of eternal life, but God choosing him as his vessel to write most of the New Testament and take the gospel to the gentiles led to his being saved, while other Pharisees didn't have the truth revealed to them as Saul did. 

Romans 9 isn’t about how people are saved.  Romans 9 is part of Paul’s impassioned plea to the Gentile believers to be a blessing to Israel.  In Romans 9 Paul is mounting a defense of God’s justness in using Israel has He did, order to bring Gentiles into the Kingdom of God.   He is defending God’s sovereign choice bring what he calls a partial blindness upon Israel, chapter 11.  The examples that Paul gives pertain to how God uses people to accomplish His purposes.   Nothing in Romans 9 says that anyone is created to be destroyed as you falsely claim.  Romans 9 is about service, not about salvation.

Quote

You said something interesting.  You mentioned Jacob's poor character.  God made Jacob that way.  It was no accident.  If he had poor character, that is because God wanted him to have poor character, at least through part of his life. It was the method God used to bring about his will.

No He didn’t make him that way.   The character we exude is the product of our own choices.  I have had episodes where my character was nothing to be proud of.  But that is on me, not God.  God didn’t engineer that into me. I sinned, I messed up. I am to blame, not God, not anyone else.  That is again, one of your slanders against the character of God that only Atheists and other unbelievers would accept. 

Quote

I am glad you brought that up, because I want to use that thought as a jumping off point.  I hope to continue in Romans chapter 9 soon, likely in my next post, but before I do, I want to bring up some interesting things that happen before we get there.  We read about how Israel wound up in Egypt and was persecuted and how God sent Moses in to deliver them.  How did they get there?  Why were they persecuted?  It was all the plan of God, every bit of it, and God orchestrated how they got there.  He used good and bad things to bring this all about. 

Yes, that is not in dispute.

Quote

We know that God loved Jacob and hated Esau.  God used Jacob and his Mother to steal the birthright and blessing from Esau, which is not exactly a picture of sinless perfection.  This led to Jacob being sent away by his Mother for fear Esau would kill him.  He winds up in the company of Laban, who has two daughters.  Jacob wants to marry the younger daughter, Rachel, and he agrees to work 7 years for her hand in marriage.  At the end of 7 years, he seeks to take her for his wife, but Laban tricks him into marrying his older daughter first.  I am contending that God designed all of this from the beginning.  God wanted Laban to trick Jacob.  It was God's plan that Jacob marry both daughters.  It was also God's plan that the two daughters would be fighting for the affection of Jacob, which would lead to Jacob marrying both of their handmaids to have more children.  God wanted to use these four women to bring about the patriarchs.  All we see are the results.  We see the strife, and we think this was all by accident, and the product of sinful decisions, but I contend it was God's will all along.  If you go back and read the story, you see God choosing to open one woman's womb and closing another at his discretion.  Nothing was by accident.    

Again, God’s love and hate as expressed in regard to Jacob and Esau, respectively, didn’t involve a contemptuous hatred.  It refers to covenant preference.   God didn’t cause or compel anyone to steal anything because God is not a thief, nor does he encourage, or ordain thievery.    God used those events you describe down to who Jacob married, but He didn’t orchestrate any of the sin involved in the character or works of the people involved.  God’s will is accomplished in spite of us and our sin.  Sin is not Gods’ tool.

Quote

I am contending that God wrote this whole story before it happened.   

And if I were an Atheist, I would probably favor your contention. 

    

Quote

  It was all his will, which should really be no problem for Shiloh since he said God has a permissive will in which some murder and rape.  Permissive or perfect will, it is still God's will.  Why wouldn't it be God's permissive will for Laban to deceive Jacob, and for Jacob to have four wives to bring about the twelve patriarchs?  It is no worse than rape and murder, which Shiloh allows for.  The only difference between me and him on a point like this is I dispute the idea God has two wills.  Lets consider some other things that happen.  There is that issue of Reuben having sexual relations with one of his Father's concubines.  I contend that this was God's will.  Again, Shiloh shouldn't object since adultery and incest is no worse than rape and murder.  Lets say it is God's "permissive will" to bring about his plan.  Shiloh does admit God does use evil to bring about his plan at times.  Why would God want this to happen?  Later on, when Reuben's brothers seek to kill Joseph, who steps in to save his life?  Reuben.  I contend that this is largely out of guilt for his earlier transgression.  Reuben convinced his brothers to sell Joseph into slavery rather than kill him, but he really wanted to return him to his Father.  They actually did sell him into slavery.  I contend it was God's will that Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, pretended he was killed, and lied to their Father.  Why?  To bring about God's plan to save everyone from a future famine. 

That is a perversion of what I said about God’s permissive will.   God permits what He hates. 

 You argue that God wants people to murder, rape, steal, become prostitutes.  You contend that adultery, child molestation, child pornography are what God wants to happen.  According to you He creates people to be those things so that He can destroy them and somehow that is supposed to glorify God.  You contend that God is the reason we have sin and the world is in such bad shape.  It’s God’s fault according to you.   According to your bizarre theology, God can sin and it’s not sin.  God could commit rape and if He did that, according to you, it would not be sin.

My argument is not as incoherent.   I view God allowing what He hates, but being able to use that situation to bring about His perfect will.   God uses imperfect people and adverse situations to bring about His purposes and plan in a fallen, broken world.  There is no biblical case that can be made that God causes or ordains sin.   No biblical case can be made that sin is part of the perfect will God.   That God permits it, doesn’t mean that God approves of it. 

Quote

Shiloh has said God isn't the author of sin and doesn't lead people to sin, but he did say it was God's permissive will to allow Job to be tormented, and people to kill and rape, showing Shiloh does think God does sometimes will that people sin. 

No, that is false, and is, again, an attempt to assign values to my argument when I clearly said the opposite numerous times on this thread.   God allowing something doesn’t mean that God wants it to happen or that God approves of it happening.

Quote

This is one of those cases.  God knew there would be a famine and Joseph would be in place to save everyone.   How did He know about the famine?  It was sent by God.  What did God do to bring Joseph into position to save everyone?  He literally had his Master's wife try to seduce him, which led to Joseph being put in prison.  God then used Joseph to interpret a dream God gave to the Pharaoh at the time, which only Joseph could interpret.  Even the sins people committed were of God for a reason.  What was the ultimate purpose of all of this?  To get Israel into Egypt so they could grow into a great nation.  God wanted them to remain there till they were a mighty people that would eventually inherit the land of Canaan.  This meant that God had to raise up an evil leader in Egypt to persecute Israel so they would call out for a deliverer, and that is exactly what God did. 

God foreknows events because God is omniscient.  He knows the future in detail, not because he orchestrated every detail, though..   In fact the Bible doesn’t say that He orchestrates every detail in our lives.  That is an assumption you are reading into ever text of the Bible, but you have not proven that assumption to be biblical.  All you have done is shown that God uses bad people and bad situations.  You have not proven that God makes people sinful.

 

Quote

  It is absurd to claim God isn't orchestrating all of these events.  Shiloh accepts that God creates everyone, and knows all we will ever do.  Shiloh accepts that God has a permissive will that has people killing and raping.  Shiloh accepts that God uses evil to bring about his will.  Given all those areas of agreement, and partial agreement with regard to permissive will verses just God's single will, this shouldn't be that hard to accept.  

None of those things come anywhere close to saying that God orchestrates sin.   Your view is blasphemous because you go beyond the biblical view that God uses sinful people.  Your view states that God makes people sinful, creates them sinful just to destroy them.  Your view strips God of His stated mercy for the whole world and states that God hates sinners even though He says that He loves them and wants them to repent. 

Quote

Nothing that anyone does happens outside the will of God. 

 People sin outside the perfect will of God, all the time.  That’s why it’s sin.  It is failure to live up to God’s perfect standard.

Quote

If we really had all this free will, we could prevent the great tribulation from ever taking place, and could stop Biblical prophecy in it's tracks. 

That demonstrates your misunderstanding of what free will is about. Free will does not extend to those events that God has sovereignly decreed will happen and cannot be changed.   Free will simply refers to our ability to choose to accept the Gospel, or reject it.

Quote

We could just choose to go in a different direction, but that is not possible.  Even Satan is a puppet.  He has no power on his own.  He has to go to God for permission to tempt or harm people, and can only go as far as God allows.  He is forced to follow God's plan, leading him right into the pit and eventually into everlasting punishment, and he can do nothing about it.  Do you think he doesn't know his fate?  He knows what is written about him, yet he is compelled to continue down the path to his destruction.  He can't help himself.  He was created to be evil, and he will continue to do evil for eternity. 

No one is a puppet.  Everyone makes their own choices about whether or not to accept Christ or not, when they hear the Gospel.  No one is forced to accept or reject Him.  That is nowhere written in stone.  If it were, evangelism would be pointless.   There would be no reason to make a laughing stock of ourselves by praying for someone to be saved that God decided not to save.

Quote

Am I penciling things into the text?  Of course I am.  Who doesn't do that to some extent?  Shiloh certainly does.  Any commentary out there makes all kinds of leaps in explaining what scripture means.  They state things as fact that are nothing more than speculation.    

No, they don’t, generally speaking.  They make arguments, but they also admit when something is purely a traditional view, they routinely present various points of view from different scholars.  They are not penciling anything into the text like you do.   You are stating as fact, that God creates people to destroy them.   You cannot cite ONE commentary, one bone fide scholar, one true doctrinal source of any kind that agrees with that nonsensical claim.  You are operating on a level that no commentator of good repute does.
 

Quote

 

What I am trying to do is get everyone to look at this critically and logically.  1.  God creates us, knowing what we will be, down to the way we die and whether we die lost or saved.  2.  God gives us a look into the future through prophecy.  Change the events through free will, and we can stop his plans.  That doesn't make any sense.  We are not here by accident.  We are here because God wants us to be here to play some little part in bringing about all those things we read about in Revelation.  Our part might be small, but it is critical in it's own way.  We effect others in ways we don't even realize.  Notice what God says in Jeremiah 1:4-5

Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee a prophet unto the nations. 

Why is this such an important scripture?  There are many that think God's intervention into who is born only goes so far as to start the process of sexual relations which leads to children.  Every child that is conceived is created by God.  He knows that child before they are formed in the belly.    

 

But nothing in that passage states that God foreordains every event.   This passage reflects God’s call on Jeremiah, and that God willed that he would be a prophet.    That doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING a person does is willed by God.   You are still confusing foreordination with foreknowledge.   You are not theologically equipped to understand the difference.   

Anyone who looks your view critically can see the gross error and perversion of claiming God as the author of sin.   You have provided no biblical reason to believe that God authored sin.   You keep hitting on the same worn out arguments again  and again, and frankly, you lost this debate weeks ago.

Quote

Look at the story of Lot.  His wife became a pillar of salt, and his two daughters both got their Father drunk and lay with him to preserve seed.  They both had children of their Father.  Every bit of that was the will of God, or those children would not have been formed in the belly.  It was God's will that Lot's wife would look back and become a pillar of salt.  Before Shiloh gets upset about my suggesting God would will that Lot's wife sin and his daughters would conceive through incest, remember that he said God's permissive will allows for men to murder and rape

Which, again, demonstrates that you don’t understand the difference between  God’s permissive, vs. perfect wills.

Quote

You can dismiss everything I am saying by claiming I am penciling things into the text and just shove it aside. 

I don’t dismiss everything you say merely on the grounds that you are adding to the Word of God; albeit, that is part of it.   I dismiss it because it is blasphemy, because it is slander against God, because it is an assault on His character and because  no one who loves God would ever declare Him to be the author of sin.

Quote

  That is your business if you wish to do that, but even in a case in a court of law, overwhelming circumstantial evidence is often times used to bring about a conviction.  I think the evidence is overwhelming, and I haven't even scratched the surface.

You haven’t brought anything that counts of evidence to support your core assertions.   You have tried to use passages that state that God uses evil people to support your claim that God makes people evil.   You use passages that do not say what you’re saying and you attempt make them fit your argument.   You have no evidence, circumstantial, or otherwise.
 

Quote

 

I haven't even gotten into the last part of Romans chapter 9.  This post is kind of a bridge to Exodus.  Think about what I am saying, and consider Shiloh's responses.  I don't believe they make any sense.  As a matter of fact, even though I have already addressed this, I want to make this comparison one more time for you to show you how silly Shiloh's argument is about the word translated perfect.  He claims it proves Lucifer was perfect inside and out but not Noah. 

These are the generations of Noah:  Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.  Genesis 6:9

Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.  Ezekiel 28:15

If your purpose in reading this is just to be a cheerleader for Shiloh because he represents what you want to believe, I am wasting my time with you, but if you are sincerely wanting to discover truth, look at these two verses side by side, and keep in mind the word translated perfect is the same Hebrew word in both instances.  In the case of Noah, he was perfect in his generations, and in the case of Lucifer, he was perfect in his ways.  It doesn't claim either were perfect inside and out as Shiloh claims, and context is not the issue.  Here is another example of this same Hebrew word being used, in this next case about King David.  David was a great man, but far from perfect.   

God is my strength and power:  and he maketh my ways perfect.  2 Samuel 22:33

I am sure Shiloh has spent time reading up on Hebrew words, but he is not as knowledgeable as he claims to be.  If he is, that means he is purposely trying to deceive us, because if he is such an expert, he shouldn't be making mistakes like this.  Lucifer was not perfect.  Noah was not perfect.  David was not perfect.  Lucifer was perfect in his ways till iniquity was found in him.  Noah was perfect in his generations.  His bloodline wasn't corrupted.  The Lord God was there to lead David in the right way, but David himself often times failed to follow in absolute perfection.  He made a lot of mistakes. 

I will close with that, and Lord willing, I will try to get back to Romans chapter 9 next time.  To those following this debate, thank you once again for your interest. 

 

The connotation of tahmim, something that you don’t apparently understand, indicates that we are dealing with an inward perfection, a total perfection.  Inward perfection is the fountain head of perfect behavior/actions.  So that if Lucifer is perfect in all His ways, an original reader of Ezekiel 28:15, a person living in Ezekiel’s day who could read Hebrew, would have understood tahmim to be referring to inward character and outward behavior all at once.

The issue with Noah is different because of the modifying phrase, “in his generations.”   That does not refer to his blood line.   The English word “generations” is used twice in Genesis 6:9   The first usage says, “These are the generations of Noah…”  The word for “generations”  is tol’dot and it does refer to his bloodline.   The second use, “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations…”  uses a different word for “generations.”  It uses the word “dor.”   It refers to a period of time.  Noah was perfect in the period of time he was living.  In fact, in that verse, it says the same thing twice about His character.  It says he was a just, upright man, and it says he was perfect in his setting or period of time, the age in which he lived.   In true Hebrew fashion, it uses a form of parallelism to emphasize his general character.  He is just/upright and he was perfect (upright) in his setting.  It is not claiming sinless perfection when referencing Noah, as that is not the case. 

The same applies here to King David in 2 Sam. 22:33.  The usage of the word tahmim in this verse, in context is blamelessness, not absolute perfection.  It is similar to how it is used in connection with Noah.   Neither of these passages are anything like Ezek. 28:15.

You’re just not grasping how language works.  It is not a matter of simply defining a word.   There are rules and those rules have to be followed otherwise we end up with incoherent, bizarre theology, like yours.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad I decided to wait to answer this till I had a lot of time.  There is a lot to deal with.  I need to start with the first argument from our previous debate.  I was never trying to make a comparison of this discussion with that discussion.  I was showing that you used the argument of common usage to defend the way you were using a Hebrew word, and later said that people that use that method have no understanding of the original language.  In other words, you discredited your own ability to understand the original language, and once again, you defended that method you used and later discredited.  The point is, you don't understand the original language, so when you keep making out like you have all this great understanding of it, by your own admission, that is not true.  Lets examine this again, using your own quotes.  First, what you said to me in your last reply.

SHILOH357:  You are trying to compare two dissimilar things.  In the previous debate, we were debating over the usage of the word "ezer."  It means, helper.  You were arguing that "ezer" meant "helper" in the sense that made wife as inferior and subordinate to her husband.  I pointed out that the overwhelming number of usages of that word didn't reflect "ezer" to mean that the helper is inferior to the one being helped. 

That is exactly the argument you were making, but later in that same thread, you posted the following: 

SHILOH357:  word usage - refers to how a word is used in a given context.  One of the biggest mistakes that people who HAVE NO SKILL IN HANDLING THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE MAKE, is they try to define a word on how it is used in other places in the Bible. 

That is exactly what you were doing, and you defended that same practice again, showing you have no skill in handling the original language, so every time you come in here claiming I am taking the word translated perfect wrong or out of context, there is no reason for anyone to take you serious.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Anyone can see that by simply comparing the places where this word is used.  Lets examine the two verses side by side again.

"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee."  Ezekiel 28:15

"These are the generations of Noah.  Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."  Genesis 6:9

The same Hebrew word was used in both instances and was translated to the English word perfect.  If Noah wasn't perfect inside and out because of the "modifying phrase" "in his generations," Lucifer wasn't perfect inside and out because of the "modifying phrase" "in thy ways."  This should be clear to anyone that looks at the use of this word in both verses side by side, just as it should be clear to anyone that reads what you said about how a word is used in most instances, you have no skill in handling the original language. 

I want to address the permissive will of God verses the perfect will of God.  I don't care how you want to spin things, when you started calling murder and torture the "permissive will of God," you still attributed it to God's will.  It is just permissive.  I can say you are slandering God using your own accusations towards me by attributing things like that to God's will, permissive or perfect.  It makes no difference.  It is still God's will.  I even gave you a chance to retract that false doctrine about God having a permissive will and you refused, and continued to repeat it, so you have to live with it.  You didn't just say that those things aren't God's will, but he only allows it.  You took it a step further and called it a "permissive" will of God.  I am not misrepresenting anything.  I would also point out that you are arguing that I am wrong in what I am teaching while you have admitted you don't know where sin came from.  I am still amazed that someone would argue anyone is wrong about anything when they readily admit they don't have the answer to the question.  I wouldn't be crazy enough to do that. 

Lets move past this and back to Genesis and the creation God said was very good.  Here is what you said.

SHILOH357:  My argument, based on your claims, is if Lucifer was created with sin and if Adam was created with sin, and if God created sin, then when God called all that he had made "very good" then it would include sin.  You have God creating man with sin and calling that creation of sin "very good." 

I am saying that Adam was created with the ability to sin, and when God created Adam, it was his will that he would sin.  Once again, that shouldn't be a big deal for you to accept, since you said, "In scripture, we see that God has both a perfect and permissive facet to his will.  God allowed Satan to torment Job.  God allows people to commit murder though God's perfect will may say, "thou shalt not kill (murder)."  If it makes you feel better, we can say it was God's "permissive" will that Adam would sin by eating the forbidden fruit. 

This brings up yet another issue, and I can't take all the credit for it.  I had someone that is a member of WB contact me to say they agreed with me that God did create evil and you don't speak for them.  This person didn't agree with all of my conclusions, but they did agree with me on that point.  They mentioned how God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and that was in the garden and part of the creation that was "very good."  I figured that you would simply say it was only the tree of the "knowledge" of good and evil, but there is something else to consider, and that is the tree's deadly fruit.  It was poison to the soul of those who ate of it.  That is hardly "very good." 

Next comes the serpent.  God held the serpent accountable for it's transgression.  You claim that the serpent couldn't sin, but not according to God.  He was angry with and punished the serpent for his part in the fall of man.  Genesis 3:13-15

And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?  And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.  And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Obviously, verse 15 is speaking to Satan, but this curse came upon snakes, and they must go about on their belly to this day.  Why punish all snakes if they didn't sin?  We are under the curse because of Adam's transgression, and snakes are under the curse because of the original serpent's transgression.  Also notice that God speaks of the woman's seed verses the devil's seed.  Jesus refers to many as children of their Father the devil, rather than children of God.  There is clearly a difference, and there is clearly seed that belongs to Satan and seed that belongs to God.  Look at the parable of the wheat and the tares.  Who sewed the tares?  Once again, you have no valid argument Shiloh. 

SHILOH357:  "The problem is that you are trying, as I have said before, to confuse foreknowledge with predestination of an object.  God knowing man will sin, doesn't mean that God wanted or ordained that sin to occur.  It doesn't mean that God created man for the express purpose of committing the sin He foreknew. 

If I have foreknowledge of something, that argument makes sense.  My simply knowing what a person will do doesn't make me responsible for what they do, and it doesn't mean I desire they do as they do.  The difference between me and God is that he is the creator of that person he had foreknowledge of.  He made them the way they are.  I am not mixing up anything.  I understand that if God creates someone knowing how they will be when he forms them in the womb, and everything they will do in their entire life, he has to want them to behave as they do, or why form them in the first place?  God formed Jeremiah to be a prophet, but he also formed all the other people he prophesied to that wouldn't listen to his warnings, and God knew how all those people would behave because he made them thus. 

As for Romans chapter 9:1-13, I already stated what it means, and I plan to continue explaining the rest of the chapter beginning at verse 14.  You simply telling me I am wrong really doesn't make it so.  Just as you have "no skill in handling the original language," you also lack the skill to rightly divide the Bible.  I am going out on a limb here is trying to explain how you came to believe the false doctrine you do, but my impression is that you spend too much time reading what others say about the Bible, rather than spending enough time in the Bible itself.  You read all these books that contain some truth and some error, that instruct you on how to interpret the Bible.  That is how cult religions do things.  They have you read their material to help you understand scripture, and that ensures you will see things as they do.  That is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do with the Watchtower, and how the Mormons try to pervert people with a Bible that highlights specific things they want you to take notice of in the Bible so you will believe the Book of Mormon.  If you have to have a set of rules to follow to interpret scripture as you teach, you are acting as a cult leader.  I am referring to hermeneutics.  The purpose of such rules is to get people to come to the same conclusions as the false prophets and teachers that designed the method of interpretation. 

SHILOH357:  You are stating as fact, that God creates people to destroy them.  You cannot cite ONE commentary, one bone fide scholar, one true doctrinal source of any kind that agrees with that nonsensical claim.  You are operating on a level that no commentary of good report does. 

After our last discussion on this topic, I visited the Primitive Baptist official web-site.  They claim to be the original Baptist Church that follows the teachings of Calvin.  They do teach that.  If you doubt me, visit their official web-site and read their official positions.  It is just as I said it is.  They teach that God creates some good and some evil, some to be saved and some to be destroyed, and they address all those questions about evangelism and why they do as they do having that knowledge.  My doctrine isn't nearly as out there as you want people to believe.  It is very close to the teachings of the Primitive Baptist Church, at least in that regard.  They also interpret Romans 9 very much as I do.  Everyone doesn't agree with you and you don't speak for everyone else.  You speak for yourself, as I speak for myself.  I don't claim to speak for Primitive Baptists either, as I feel confident there are areas they don't agree with me.  I would say the biggest difference is they teach that if you have a heart for God and desire to be saved, it is because you were pre-destined to be saved, and if not, you were created for destruction.  I think there is a little more to it than just having a heart for God, but in principle, we are of the same general beliefs.  Again, it is simple enough for anyone to check it out yourself if you think nobody else agrees with me, and I am out here on an island alone.  That is not the case. 

As far as atheists and God haters go, I couldn't care less what they say.  I have heard them mock many doctrines Shiloh.  They mock the idea someone can get saved and remain saved no matter what they do.  They mock the idea of a rapture, where the church will be taken out before the great tribulation period begins.  They mock the Genesis account of creation and Noah's flood.  They mock anything to do with God because they hate him.  Primitive Baptists believe very much as I do on this topic, and you know what?  They believe in God, and love God.  They meet on a regular basis and worship God.  They try to follow the Bible.  Amazing isn't it?  They believe God created some good and some evil and still love and serve him.  If a person hates God, it is because they were created to be vessels of dishonor.  They were created tares and wolves, as opposed to wheat and sheep.  Nothing I say will lead to one person being an atheist.  They may claim that is the case, but it is not reality.  They are what they are made to be, and I can't save them or do anything to make them go to hell if I try. 

Why does God want us to preach?  He wants his message spread throughout all the earth.  That is it.  He wants everyone to have heard the truth, but only those who are chosen to be saved will accept Christ.  The rest will have hard hearts and they won't accept the message of salvation. 

I most certainly have presented evidence.  I have presented Romans 9:1-13, and unlike you, I gave everyone the true meaning of those verses.  I showed how God created evil by creating Lucifer.  That is how evil got here.  God created Lucifer to be his adversary or he wouldn't be God's adversary.  It is as simple as that.  God knew what Lucifer would do when he fashioned him, as God knows everything, and he chose to make him anyway.  I have presented examples of how God is behind what is taking place in this world, and not just far away in heaven letting things take place as they will with no interference.  You can read in Genesis how God orchestrated all kinds of things, good and evil, to bring about his ultimate purpose.  You can see the same thing throughout scripture.  You may not be impressed with my evidence, but I am not impressed by your false interpretations of the Bible and the way you try to deceive people with your misuse of Hebrew words.  Those who read this thread will make up their own minds what is legitimate evidence and what is not.  At least one person has told me they agree with me that God created evil, and I know of at least one other member of WB that said the same thing in a post, so I know I am not alone on that, and you don't speak for them. 

This post is very long, so I will hold off on the rest of Romans 9 till the next post, but I hope everyone will look closely at the slight of hand you have been pulling with regard to your use of hermeneutics and Hebrew words, as well as your false accusations that you speak for everyone and nobody agrees with my conclusions.  I am not going to claim anyone goes as far as I have in saying everything we do and say was pre-planned, but there are others who believe our eternal destiny was settled before we were created, and they go so far as to say God literally hated Esau, and that God doesn't literally love or desire that the whole world be saved or they would.  You can find that right in the pages of the teachings of the Primitive Baptist Church, who follow Calvin.   I didn't go quite as far as they did in that regard, because the word translated hate can mean "love less," and I didn't want to go beyond the definition, but they do teach God created people to be destroyed as well as others to be saved.  My desire to seek out different beliefs when I first got saved was obviously ordained of God so I would be prepared for this debate in 2016. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

I am glad I decided to wait to answer this till I had a lot of time.  There is a lot to deal with.  I need to start with the first argument from our previous debate.  I was never trying to make a comparison of this discussion with that discussion.  I was showing that you used the argument of common usage to defend the way you were using a Hebrew word, and later said that people that use that method have no understanding of the original language.  In other words, you discredited your own ability to understand the original language, and once again, you defended that method you used and later discredited.  The point is, you don't understand the original language, so when you keep making out like you have all this great understanding of it, by your own admission, that is not true.  Lets examine this again, using your own quotes.  First, what you said to me in your last reply.   

SHILOH357:  You are trying to compare two dissimilar things.  In the previous debate, we were debating over the usage of the word "ezer."  It means, helper.  You were arguing that "ezer" meant "helper" in the sense that made wife as inferior and subordinate to her husband.  I pointed out that the overwhelming number of usages of that word didn't reflect "ezer" to mean that the helper is inferior to the one being helped. 

That is exactly the argument you were making, but later in that same thread, you posted the following: 

SHILOH357:  word usage - refers to how a word is used in a given context.  One of the biggest mistakes that people who HAVE NO SKILL IN HANDLING THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE MAKE, is they try to define a word on how it is used in other places in the Bible. 

That is exactly what you were doing, and you defended that same practice again, showing you have no skill in handling the original language, so every time you come in here claiming I am taking the word translated perfect wrong or out of context, there is no reason for anyone to take you serious.  You don't know what you are talking about.

 

Yes, the same word is used, but the usage isn’t the same, and the modifiers are not the same.  The modifiers amplify the usage/meaning in their respective passages.   The modifier “in all his ways”  in Ezekiel 28:15 speaks to Lucifer’s absolute perfection.  And this is bolstered by the biblical teaching that our works, our actions stem from inner character, meaning that if Lucifer is perfect in what he does, it stems from inner perfection.  That principle cannot be rejected simply because it doesn’t comport with your baseless, heretical, slanderous claim against God that He is the author of sin.

With regard to Noah, the modifier, ‘in his generations”  isn’t speaking to absolute perfection, but to his general character, which in his case was rare given the fact that all of humanity was so evil that God had to judge humanity.   You seem to want to try to manufacture a contradiction that doesn’t exist.  We are not dealing with the same word used the same way.   The modifiers tell us how we are to view the words, they help provide the context.   You are ignoring context in order to prove that tahmim can’t mean what it means since its usage in either passage simply doesn’t aid your argument. 

 

Quote

  I want to address the permissive will of God verses the perfect will of God.  I don't care how you want to spin things, when you started calling murder and torture the "permissive will of God," you still attributed it to God's will.  It is just permissive.  I can say you are slandering God using your own accusations towards me by attributing things like that to God's will, permissive or perfect.  It makes no difference.  It is still God's will.  I even gave you a chance to retract that false doctrine about God having a permissive will and you refused, and continued to repeat it, so you have to live with it.  You didn't just say that those things aren't God's will, but he only allows it.  You took it a step further and called it a "permissive" will of God.  I am not misrepresenting anything.

Actually, your argument rests on a hard deterministic view of the will of God, that you haven’t really proven.   I can demonstrate that the perfect will of God is that people do not murder.  God gives an explicit commandment not to murder.   But people murder.  God permits it, for reasons that are unknown to us, in some cases.   God allows people to do what He hates and what His perfect will abhors.

Your view of the will of God, as represented in this discussion makes no room for God to permit anything.  Everything is pre-determined by God.  In your incoherent, irrational view of God, God created sin, God wants sin, God called sin “very good.”   In your view God wants and makes man to disobey Him.   So that nothing happens except that God wanted it to happen.   God wants babies to be aborted, God wants little girls to be raped.   God wants children to be beaten to death by drunken, abusive fathers.   God wants people to commit suicide. In your view, God drives people to commit suicide.  

In your view everything, no matter how horrible it is, is God’s fault.   God wants some people to be atheists, to be Satan worshippers, to worship idols and follow false religions, etc.   Sorry, but no true follower of Jesus can accept your view of God’s will because it has God playing both sides.   God demands holiness, calls people to repent of sin, says He hates sin, cannot even look upon sin, but at the same time created it, creates people to not only murder and rape, but then makes it impossible for them to repent, or to be saved.    If that is the god you serve, you serve a false god, not the God of Scripture. 

Quote

 

    I would also point out that you are arguing that I am wrong in what I am teaching while you have admitted you don't know where sin came from.  I am still amazed that someone would argue anyone is wrong about anything when they readily admit they don't have the answer to the question.  I wouldn't be crazy enough to do that.


 

 

I have chosen to remain silent where the Bible is silent.  The Bible doesn't tell us where sin came from.  The Bible does not claim that God created sin.   You are trying, through fleshly, ungodly reasoning, trying assert that God created sin, and you do so with no biblical support.   I have the integrity and honesty to say that I don't know.   I would never be so arrogant to assign the blame for sin to God, as you have done.   We have enough light in Scripture with regard to the character of God to rule Him out as the author of sin.   For you to reject that revelation of God and to assign the origin of sin to Him, is not something I would want to be accountable for when I stand before the judgment seat of Christ.  
   

Quote

 

Lets move past this and back to Genesis and the creation God said was very good.  Here is what you said

       SHILOH357:  My argument, based on your claims, is if Lucifer was created with sin and if Adam was created with sin, and if God created sin, then when God called all that he had made "very good" then it would include sin.  You have God creating man with sin and calling that creation of sin "very good."

    I am saying that Adam was created with the ability to sin, and when God created Adam, it was his will that he would sin.  Once again, that shouldn't be a big deal for you to accept, since you said, "In scripture, we see that God has both a perfect and permissive facet to his will.  God allowed Satan to torment Job.  God allows people to commit murder though God's perfect will may say, "thou shalt not kill (murder)."  If it makes you feel better, we can say it was God's "permissive" will that Adam would sin by eating the forbidden fruit.   

 

Actually, you stated earlier that God did not create Adam and Eve perfect.  Adam had the same iniquity in him that Satan had.   Of course Adam had the capacity to disobey God.  That isn’t finally the point.   The issue is God’s will.  Did God intend the fall of man and did He create man perfectly.   God indicates that Adam and Eve were perfect when He called all that He had made up to that point, “very good.”  It has the connotation of perfection.  “Perfect”  doesn’t rule out the capacity to become imperfect.  It doesn’t mean that Adam didn’t have the capacity to sin. But it does mean that Adam had no sin, no imperfection in him at the beginning.

And yes, God’s permissive will allowed the Fall to happen, but that in no way indicates that God wanted or intended for it to happen.

 

Quote

    This brings up yet another issue, and I can't take all the credit for it.  I had someone that is a member of WB contact me to say they agreed with me that God did create evil and you don't speak for them.  This person didn't agree with all of my conclusions, but they did agree with me on that point.  They mentioned how God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and that was in the garden and part of the creation that was "very good."  I figured that you would simply say it was only the tree of the "knowledge" of good and evil, but there is something else to consider, and that is the tree's deadly fruit.  It was poison to the soul of those who ate of it.  That is hardly "very good."

The fruit was not deadly at all. God didn’t create deadly fruit. The fruit WAS very good.  There was nothing wrong with the fruit.   Had God not issued the commandment not to eat of the tree, nothing would have happened after eating it.   What caused the Fall in the Garden was Adam’s disobedience, not fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It is possible that had Adam remained obedient for a period of time, that God would have lifted the ban and allowed him and Eve to eat of that tree.  There was nothing evil or poisonous (spiritually or otherwise) about the tree or its fruit.   It was Adam’s act of disobedience that caused the fall.

And I would be careful about drawing any confidence from someone who views are just as heretical as yours agreeing with you.  Two people holding to the same heretical, misguided, sinful views, doesn't suddenly give those views credibility.  It just means you found someone willing to join you in heresy.

Quote

   Next comes the serpent.  God held the serpent accountable for it's transgression.  You claim that the serpent couldn't sin, but not according to God.  He was angry with and punished the serpent for his part in the fall of man.  Genesis 3:13-15   

On its own, a snake doesn’t sin.  It is an animal that operates off of instinct.  We know from the progressive nature of revelation in the Bible, that it was Satan.  The Bible doesn’t tell us if Satan possessed the body of a snake or if he took on the form of a snake.   But apart from the agency of Satan, the snake was not an evil, sinful animal.  God evidently caused snakes to crawl on their bellies, but that is a reminder to us of the curse, not an indicator that snakes were sinful animals, if that is what you were inferring.

  

Quote

 

  And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?  And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.  And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

    Obviously, verse 15 is speaking to Satan, but this curse came upon snakes, and they must go about on their belly to this day.  Why punish all snakes if they didn't sin?  We are under the curse because of Adam's transgression, and snakes are under the curse because of the original serpent's transgression.  Also notice that God speaks of the woman's seed verses the devil's seed.  Jesus refers to many as children of their Father the devil, rather than children of God.  There is clearly a difference, and there is clearly seed that belongs to Satan and seed that belongs to God.  Look at the parable of the wheat and the tares.  Who sewed the tares?  Once again, you have no valid argument Shiloh.

 

If based on your previous lines of argumentation, you are inferring here that some people are born, “the seed of Satan” and some are born as, “the seed that belongs to God,”  you are wholly mistaken in attempting to apply Gen. 3:15 in that manner.  That would an additional heresy.
 

Quote

 

SHILOH357:  "The problem is that you are trying, as I have said before, to confuse foreknowledge with predestination of an object.  God knowing man will sin, doesn't mean that God wanted or ordained that sin to occur.  It doesn't mean that God created man for the express purpose of committing the sin He foreknew.

If I have foreknowledge of something, that argument makes sense.  My simply knowing what a person will do doesn't make me responsible for what they do, and it doesn't mean I desire they do as they do.  The difference between me and God is that he is the creator of that person he had foreknowledge of.  He made them the way they are.  I am not mixing up anything.  I understand that if God creates someone knowing how they will be when he forms them in the womb, and everything they will do in their entire life, he has to want them to behave as they do, or why form them in the first place?  God formed Jeremiah to be a prophet, but he also formed all the other people he prophesied to that wouldn't listen to his warnings, and God knew how all those people would behave because he made them thus.    

 

Yes, you are still confusing the concepts.  The fact that God creates a person and knows what they will do, does not logically mean that He created their entire future and pre-determined their every action and choice.  Nothing you say will change that.

 

Quote

   As for Romans chapter 9:1-13, I already stated what it means, and I plan to continue explaining the rest of the chapter beginning at verse 14.  You simply telling me I am wrong really doesn't make it so

Actually I didn’t just tell you that your interpretation is wrong. I explained and demonstrated why it is wrong.  And up to this point, you have failed to provide any refutation of the points I made.   All you can do is complain and bluster.   You can reject what I said, but you cannot refute what I said.

The difference here is that I can demonstrate why I think you're wrong.  I can provide reasons, actual reasons, none of which you actually address with any degree of substance in your responses.  All you can do is stomp and snort and pound the table.  You can't do Hermeneutics and as such you cannot really respond with substantive reasons to reject what I say.
 

Quote

 

   Just as you have "no skill in handling the original language," you also lack the skill to rightly divide the Bible.  I am going out on a limb here is trying to explain how you came to believe the false doctrine you do, but my impression is that you spend too much time reading what others say about the Bible, rather than spending enough time in the Bible itself. 


 

 

I divide my reading time up between the Bible and other theological works by people like Spurgeon, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, John R. Rice, Oliver B. Greene, David Jeremiah, John MacArthur, etc.  It is because I spend an immense amount of time in the Bible itself that I can spot heretical teachings like yours.  If all I had was the Bible, I could still refute your slander of God.   No amount of time in Scripture and reading it correctly would render theological garbage like you are promoting.

Quote

    You read all these books that contain some truth and some error, that instruct you on how to interpret the Bible.  That is how cult religions do things.  They have you read their material to help you understand scripture, and that ensures you will see things as they do.  That is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do with the Watchtower, and how the Mormons try to pervert people with a Bible that highlights specific things they want you to take notice of in the Bible so you will believe the Book of Mormon. 

Reading the books of other theologians does not equate with cultic activity.  Cults actually dissuade anyone from reading anything other than their literature.  Theologians do not encourage anyone to read their own personal books, and only their books to the exclusion of anyone else. And none of them claim infallibility, which again defies your attempt to paint them as cultic.

Cult leaders maintain control by controlling how much members have access to outside influences that might influence their followers away from them.  They maintain tight control.  My reading of various teachers and theologians is actually the opposite of what cult leaders do.  Cult leaders do not want to be questioned or challenged.   They have their own unique doctrines that they have concocted in their own personal study of the Bible and they have no sounding board, no one they are accountable to, to check their teaching.  And they reject any need for accountability.

When Benny Hinn several years ago, joined the Assemblies of God, he had written a book wherein he claimed that the Lord told him that each of the members of the Trinity were a trinity, so that there are not three members of the Godhead, but nine.    The AoG called him down on that claim and challenged his assertion that God had revealed extra-biblical revelation.   Hinn very quickly severed his ties from the AoG  because he, being a cult leader, did not want to be accountable to anyone.   He was used to people just accepting what he taught, no questions asked.   That’s how cult leaders operate.

Quote

    If you have to have a set of rules to follow to interpret scripture as you teach, you are acting as a cult leader.  I am referring to hermeneutics.  The purpose of such rules is to get people to come to the same conclusions as the false prophets and teachers that designed the method of interpretation.

Actually, it is false teachers and false prophets who hate Hermeneutics.  Hermeneutics are not one guy telling everyone else what to believe.   Hermeneutics provide boundaries so that we don’t end up being led astray by every wind of doctrine.   The Word of Faith movement, Mormons, JW’s, the Yahwist Cults, Armstrongism  (serpent-seed doctrine), all hate Hermeneutics because they cannot promote their wacky ideas if they applied proper rules for literary analysis.

I am surprised that you reject Hermeneutics because so many KJV only preachers are sticklers on proper Hermeneutics. I am talking about men like Sam Gipp, David Cloud, John R. Rice, and others.  They emphasize good, solid hermeneutical approaches to the Bible.  They would find your teachings abhorrent.  Hermeneutics is a guard against false teaching.

You don’t like Hermeneutics for the very fact that Hermeneutics would not allow for, “The Bible according to Butero.”  You have your own doctrine you have cooked up by yourself and Hermeneutics is a total buzz kill for those who have their own pet teachings and agendas.  You put forth this attitude that you are right and if all Christendom disagrees, then all of Christendom is wrong.   THAT is a cultic mentality.  That was the mentality of Fred Phelps at Westboro.  He had his own theology and everyone in the church was wrong, but him.
 

Quote

 

   SHILOH357:  You are stating as fact, that God creates people to destroy them.  You cannot cite ONE commentary, one bone fide scholar, one true doctrinal source of any kind that agrees with that nonsensical claim.  You are operating on a level that no commentary of good report does.

    After our last discussion on this topic, I visited the Primitive Baptist official web-site.  They claim to be the original Baptist Church that follows the teachings of Calvin.  They do teach that.  If you doubt me, visit their official web-site and read their official positions.  It is just as I said it is.  They teach that God creates some good and some evil, some to be saved and some to be destroyed, and they address all those questions about evangelism and why they do as they do having that knowledge.  My doctrine isn't nearly as out there as you want people to believe.  It is very close to the teachings of the Primitive Baptist Church, at least in that regard.

 

 

Yes, I know they are Calvinist.   I  cited the London Confession they ascribe to, and there is nothing in that confession that claims that God created people destroy them.  Nothing on their doctrinal positions state that God creates people to destroy them.   Sorry, but I was on that site and you cannot misrepresent their teachings to me.   They do NOT teach what you are teaching.

Quote

    They also interpret Romans 9 very much as I do.  Everyone doesn't agree with you and you don't speak for everyone else.  You speak for yourself, as I speak for myself.  I don't claim to speak for Primitive Baptists either, as I feel confident there are areas they don't agree with me 

 

No one with any theological training or credibility interprets Romans 9 like you do.  Not even devoted Calvinists.   Your teaching is not mainstream at all.   I don’t claim to speak for everyone else and have never done so, but there is NO denomination, no interpretive system in Christianity would allow for such erroneous, blasphemous teachings like what you promote.   That doesn’t mean there are not people out there who are just wrong as you are about this.  You might find someone who agrees with you, but all that means is there are false teachers willing to join you in your error.  Just because an atheist can find other atheists that agree with him doesn’t make his view credible.
  

Quote

 

  I would say the biggest difference is they teach that if you have a heart for God and desire to be saved, it is because you were pre-destined to be saved, and if not, you were created for destruction


 

 

I looked for that, but didn’t find the part about God creating people to be destroyed.  That is a false value that you are assigning to them.   As Calvinists, they believe that God selected out of all people from the foundation of the earth, those who would be followers.  What they teach is that man is born totally depraved, unable to hear the voice of God.  They teach that God “regenerates” the hearts of those who he chose to save and passes over everyone else.  Nowhere do they teach that God actively creates people to go to Hell.   I wholly disagree with their position, but I am honest enough to frame their positions correctly and they do NOT teach that anyone was created to go  to Hell, and they certainly do not teach that God created sin.

  

Quote

  I think there is a little more to it than just having a heart for God, but in principle, we are of the same general beliefs.  Again, it is simple enough for anyone to check it out yourself if you think nobody else agrees with me, and I am out here on an island alone.  That is not the case.   

In terms of God creating sin and creating people just to destroy them, yeah, you are pretty much alone.  You might find few stragglers out there who believe that God authors and creates sin, but you will find no one with any theological credibility who accepts that and so far, you have not really demonstrated that from the Bible.  It is not found in Scripture and so it is not just a matter of not having anyone agree with you, as much as it is that you have no ability biblically defend it.

  

Quote

  As far as atheists and God haters go, I couldn't care less what they say.  I have heard them mock many doctrines Shiloh.  They mock the idea someone can get saved and remain saved no matter what they do.  They mock the idea of a rapture, where the church will be taken out before the great tribulation period begins.  They mock the Genesis account of creation and Noah's flood.  They mock anything to do with God because they hate him. 

 

That may be true, but they also view God as the true author of evil, if God exists. They make an argument that really comports with what you say, and to have a Christian affirm their view that God is the cause of all of the pain and suffering in the world, on re-enforces their hatred and mockery of God.   You are an enabler of Atheism, just like the Evolutionists.  Your teachings are a liability to Kingdom of God, only an enemy of Cross would blame God the sin that Jesus came to redeem man from.  Your doctrines put Jesus at enmity with God the Father.   Jesus came to redeem man from the  curse of sin that God wants man to live in and live under.


 

Quote

 

    Primitive Baptists believe very much as I do on this topic, and you know what?  They believe in God, and love God.  They meet on a regular basis and worship God.  They try to follow the Bible.  Amazing isn't it?  They believe God created some good and some evil and still love and serve him.  If a person hates God, it is because they were created to be vessels of dishonor.  They were created tares and wolves, as opposed to wheat and sheep.  Nothing I say will lead to one person being an atheist.  They may claim that is the case, but it is not reality.  They are what they are made to be, and I can't save them or do anything to make them go to hell if I try.


 

 

The PB would be offended to know that you are ascribing your anti-biblical doctrines to them.  They would be offended to know that someone is telling others that the PB’s teach that God creates people to destroy them.

I don't know if what you teach will lead people into atheism, but what your have the potential to do, is make Atheists comfortable in their atheism.  You are an enabler for Atheism.   You give fodder for the Atheists and your teachings if they ever got out there in the world, would wreck any progress that missionaries and evangelists have made in sharing the Gospel on college campuses and other venues where Atheism is common.   Your views are a threat to evangelism and missions.

 

Quote

 

I most certainly have presented evidence.  I have presented Romans 9:1-13, and unlike you, I gave everyone the true meaning of those verses. 


 

No, you have not provided evidence.  You have provided, “the Bible according to Butero.”   That is all  you have provided.

 

Quote

  I showed how God created evil by creating Lucifer.  That is how evil got here.

 

The Bible doesn’t say that.  That is just your fleshly reasoning.

 

   

Quote

God created Lucifer to be his adversary or he wouldn't be God's adversary.  It is as simple as that. 

 

The Bible doesn’t say that, either.


   

Quote

 

God knew what Lucifer would do when he fashioned him, as God knows everything, and he chose to make him anyway.  I have presented examples of how God is behind what is taking place in this world, and not just far away in heaven letting things take place as they will with no interference.  You can read in Genesis how God orchestrated all kinds of things, good and evil, to bring about his ultimate purpose.  You can see the same thing throughout scripture. 


 

No, what we find in Scripture is that God uses evil people and adverse circumstances to accomplish His Kingdom agenda.  God does not create sin and doesn’t ordain people to be evil or to sin, to accomplish His goals.   God using sinful, evil people doesn’t equate with God creating them to be evil.

Quote

My desire to seek out different beliefs when I first got saved was obviously ordained of God so I would be prepared for this debate in 2016. 

 

Too bad.  When I got saved, I got a hunger for Scripture, not a hunger for different beliefs.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it's been a couple of months since there was a reply in this debate, I'm going to go ahead and close it down.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.