Calvinists: How is God NOT a sinner?

Thank you sir. You are right on spot. Charles Hodge on 'The Right of Private Judgment' (emphasis mine):

 

4. It need hardly be remarked that this right of private judgment is the great safeguard of civil and religious liberty......

Thank you Lord.

 

Which is exactly why I am a "Calvinist" Christian.

 

...and a reason most are not

 

????????????

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63552

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=64501

 

You must employ strange math. In the thread I started, faith being simultaneous or preceding regeneration is at 16, regeneration preceding faith is 12, other is 1 (Allen clarified his error in voting).

In the thread you started, it is so vague nothing can be determined. Salvation is completely of God (monegism), yet He requires faith on our part (synergism). You left off the TRUE answer...both.

At any rate, I was unaware the Baptist Board polling system was the true watermark for all believers

 

Again, you sound like a sore loser.

 

Last time I checked, God was still God. That means we are not God and we are not in any position to judge Him. The bible tells us "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa 55:8-9 ESV)"

Calvinists, and non-Calvinists, err in that they try to nail God down into human terms. God is God and He will not fit into any box we try to put Him in. God is holiness... He is not just a holy being, but He IS holiness. He is beyond righteous. Trying to distill God down to the things we know and understand is trying to rob Him of His deity and it just won't work.

We define evil by our own terms. I am not talking about relativism or "what's bad to you may not be bad to me" kind of stuff. That which is painful or causes loss we call evil. God uses these very things for His purposes. He prunes our lives, cutting (sometimes painfully) out that which is not desirable or unrighteous. God removes people and things from our lives for multiple purposes that we do not understand, but all of them are a part of the plan He has laid out. We are defining these things through our experiences and not through God's purposes. Until we are made perfection heaven and can talk openly with God face to face we will not fully comprehend Him or His actions.

So, what you call "bad" may be bad to us, but what are we not seeing? On what standing does anyone have to try to say that those things God does and brings about are "bad"? Even though we may not understand why God does something, or why He allowed it to happen, we have to realize that He is still God and that He is still on the throne. Calvinism, or whatever other school of thought you choose, does not change this fact.

 

The older I get the less I listen to proposed theologies and the more I focus on the outcome.

Hebrews 13:7, "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith."

Look at the outcome of the faith of those you are looking at for the next 30 years. There is no new theology among them. Church history will show that.

 

That is a good thought. As Solomon said many times, there is nothing new under the sun. If man can think it up, it was long ago considered by the Lord. I hear all the time, when I get to Heaven, the first thing I am going to ask the Lord is (fill in the blank). For all the debate over sovereignty and Bible versions, my guess is, once we get there, we will not care.

 

So, let me make sure I understand your theological position by applying it to actual circumstances and see if I'm clear (a practice called "applied theology"):

You believe God arranged the circumstances of child molester, John Couey, in such a way so that he would certainly think of kidnapping, raping and burying little Jessica alive in a plastic bag? Further, you believe God fully brought about that heinous thought?

Is that correct? Where did the thought originate? With John or God?

 

heck, we won't even remember what we were fighting about. :flower:

 

Get a piece of paper a pen and a Bible and go through these:

The Doctrines of Grace

What is the nature of God's grace in salvation? From the time of the Reformation forward, the answer to this question was simple: every single aspect of salvation, from election to glorification, is wholly by God's sovereign grace.
In the Netherlands of early 17th century, however, this unified voice for a biblical doctrine of salvation was challenged by the so-called Remonstrant Arminians with their five points of grievance with the orthodox teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. The response to their grievance is what has come to be known as the five points of Calvinism.
This five-part sermon series follows the traditional TULIP acrostic that outlines the church's response to Arminianism:
1.) Total Depravity
2.) Unconditional Election
3.) Limited Atonement
4.) Irresistable Grace
5.) Perseverance of the Saints


http://www.solidfoodmedia.com/messages/seriesview.php?id=12


The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart: A Case Study in the Sovereignty of God

If you have ever had questions like:

"If God is all-powerful and all-loving, how can there be evil in the world?"

"Is God in control of all things, or only the good things that happen to us?"

"Did God choose me or did I choose him?"

Or questions like these, then this five-part series is for you. Taken from Pastor R. W. Glenn's expository sermons from the book of Exodus, this collection of messages looks at God's dealings with Pharaoh as a window for examining the difficult subject of the absolute sovereignty of God.

http://www.solidfoodmedia.com/messages/seriesview.php?id=11


Some of the best podcasts I've listened to in quite a while.

 

That is a good thing. Being as guilty as anyone on the board, I wonder what the Lord thinks about some of the exchanges back and forth I have read. Not that some of these threads have any excuse for their tone, but a few questions do come to mind. The main one is why do the subjects of Bible versions and Calvinism bring out the most heated debate over all others? Another thing that puzzles me is that it is one thing for laymen like me to go back and forth with someone just based on my experience and individual Bible study, but what I do not understand is the sharp words and differences of opinion expressed here by those called of God to be leaders, and have been to our highest instututions of learning Scripture.

 

I don't know about the Bible versions but I think with regards to the C/A thing, the whole business begins when one side throws insinuations against the other, or subtly misrepresent one side and speak as if that were exactly what the other believed.
I confess to being a hothead and I do say things which I shouldn't have said, and believe it or not, it makes my whole day miserable when I do, but I love the Doctrine of Grace and all who adhere to it, which is not to say I don't care for those on the other side, but there is a stronger feeling of bonding for those who hold to the same doctrines, and I don't think they of the other side will deny that, as true for them, too.
Nevertheless, I have tried to extend my olive branches to two of those I have often quarreled with (if I may be allowed to use the word), and both have also responded in kind.

 

You have a very good point. The insults back and forth can get out of hand before one realizes how bad things have gotten. Personally, I think that edit button should be on posts much longer than it is. It is also perfectly understandable that you would feel a closer bond to those who believe in sovereignty and grace. While some people like you and me get caught up in the ferver back and forth if not kept in check, I strongly believe there are those lurking on this board who start things like this on purpose, and after they get it going, disappear and go to the next situation.

 

O.K. YOU tell ME. Is God unwilling to stop the act? Is He powerless to stop it? Because those are the only two other choices that you have.

 

He is unwilling, obviously, but that is a red herring because it fails to address the question of the discussion and attempts to refocus the debate on another point.

I'm asking about the origination of the thought. Was it God's or John Couey's?

Do you believe God arranged the circumstances of child molester, John Couey, in such a way so that he would certainly think of kidnapping, raping and burying little Jessica alive in a plastic bag?

Further, you believe God fully brought about that heinous thought?

Please answer the questions.

 

When the farmer puts his cow out to pasture he lets the animal eat the grass within the boundaries he has created with a fence but he does not control if one animal decides to eat along the fence and another decides to lie down.

God controls the boundaries and within those boundaries we can choose. We have two natures which we can choose to feed. When God gives a command in scripture He realizes that we have the choice to obey or not obey. Spiritual growth occurs when we obey and start to become useless when we do not obey.

 

John Couey's

Ever read the Old Testament? Ever read how God sent evil Spirits to men so they would commit certain acts? Ever read

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He will.

God only need remove His grace and man will do the desires of his heart.

No, it came straight from man's evil heart and is accountable to it.

I'm suprised you don't know these things being a former Calvinist.