Is God A Moral Monster?

[UnitedWithChrist]

And this presupposes Unconditional election which is false. God wishes all to be saved. Christ died for all. But only those who believe and surrender to Christ will be saved.

I've already produced numerous Scriptures to prove that God has an elect people, which he has given the Son, and the Son died for them. The Scriptures clearly state that Jesus died for "the sheep".

I realize there are Scriptures which say that Jesus died for "all" and that he draws "all", but in the context of the early church, there was a conception that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews only.

The apostles continually refuted this claim by referring to "all". He died for all kinds of people, Jew and Gentile, powerful and weak.

This is the only way you can make sense of the two kinds of verses.

Additionally, the Day of Atonement related to the atonement of Jesus. The atonement sacrifice of Leviticus 16 was only effective for the nation of Israel, not the surrounding Gentile nations.

By the way, the universal atonement of free-willers is not a real atonement; it only makes possible forgiveness of sins. It does not cause forgiveness of sins. Therefore, it is no atonement at all.


The limited atonement ACTUALLY saved God's elect. This is a real atonement.

I have thoroughly covered that on my limited atonement thread.

When it comes down to it, the god of free-willers is a god which does not accomplish his purpose. Period. He makes it possible for his purpose to be acccomplished theoretically, but does not accomplish it. His purpose can be thwarted, because the man and his alleged free will holds the trump card. I don't worship powerless gods.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I never said a predestined plan wasn't Biblical but I see how God works in the midst of mankind to bring about his will. Not force but working in the midst. Each individual God used did so by first believing and then acting in faith and obedience to do the will of God.
.

Reformed theology doesn't believe God uses "force". God changes the nature, so that the person has a heart of flesh, rather than a heart of stone. The heart of stone cannot respond to God in faith and repentance.

Memes of free-willers showing men bashing down a door with a ram are ridiculous propaganda. If you get your theology from free-willers, you will end up being a biblical ignoramus.

Free-willer theology puts too much confidence in the fallen nature of man to provide a spiritual response. There is no chance of such a response.

Their theology is backwards. God needs to change the nature to enable the response.

Man's heart is deceitfully wicked. I suggest reading Romans 7-8, Jeremiah 17:9, Ephesians 2:1-10 and seriously thinking about the verses.

A diseased tree cannot bring forth good fruit, and faith and repentance are certainly a good fruit.

Humanistic presuppositions are dishonoring to God.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

You haven't addressed anything. In fact every claim I said about your beliefs being self defeating and you did not counter why it wasn't self defeating.

Even the scriptures I use you neither try to to tell me how they do not fit. But instead just go back to your same old message with lack of evidence and logical conclusions.

You will have to define in your thoughts on imputed righteousness.

Cant speak for Charles Finney.

By the way, prove to me your presupposition of libertarian free will from the Bible.

In other words, show me that God never exerts an external influence upon man's will to bring him to faith. Show me that he doesn't change man's nature in order to cause a faith response.


You need to show me that man has more than a creaturely free will.

In other words, prove your free will presuppositions.

And, it doesn't help to show me commands, with the assumption that individuals can perform those commands. God asks the man to do the impossible to show to him his helplessness.

By the way, the heretic Pelagius used the same reasoning. If God commands something, then the man must be able to do this command. That was his reasoning.

 

[CS1]

Here is a quote from a leading New Age Atheist.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.​

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Due to confusion from other threads on this very issue. I will in detail speak on this issue.

Most Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God. To be true. And God to have certain characteristics like all-loving but also all just. This is a typical belief. And for the time being, I will assume we do not need to go into Biblical evidence or on how we can know the Bible to be true. I will start with the conclusion that the Bible is 100% true.

So with this in mind, it is intellectually honest for people to question scriptures that deal with the killing of women, children, God causing miscarriages, or a raped woman is forced to marry the rapist, or even slavery is brought up by critics. Now, remember we say the Bible is true and the Word of God.

I will list 1 example of each.

1 Samuel 15:2-3, 8 New International Version (NIV)

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.

Numbers 5:21-22 New International Version (NIV)
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Those verses will fill your church pews wont they?

I'll start with 1 Samuel 15.

Let us remember God is Holy. A Holy being is perfect. God cannot sin but is all good and loving. But being Holy he must be just because sin cannot dwell with God. Adam cursed all of mankind.

Romans 5:12 New International Version (NIV)
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Was the Amalekites innocent? In God's eyes no one is innocent in less you in the OT followed the ceremonial sacrifices or in the NT put faith in Christ who became the ultimate sacrifice.

This was a point in history, a season in history, where God is the immediate king of a people, Israel, different than the way he is the king over the church, which is from all the peoples of Israel and does not have a political, ethnic dimension to it.

With Joshua there was a political, ethnic dimension, God was immediate king, and he uses this people as his instrument to accomplish his judgment in the world at that time.

The Amalekites was heavily pagan and seeping so deep in demonic evil for a very long time and God patiently waited as he does with any nations judgement in the OT. Their time had ran out and when God decides to judge a nation he is Just for doing so.

When God takes life he isn't a murderer but is well within his resume as the creator of life. Dealing with the Amalekites, Saul failed to kill all as God commanded and the Amalekites just a couple of decades later, there were enough to take David and his men’s families captive (1 Samuel 30:1-2). After David and his men attacked the Amalekites and rescued their families, 400 Amalekites escaped.

If Saul had fulfilled what God had commanded him, this never would have occurred. Several hundred years later, a descendant of Agag, Haman, tried to have the entire Jewish people exterminated (see the book of Esther).

So, Saul’s incomplete obedience almost resulted in Israel’s destruction. God knew this would occur, so He ordered the extermination of the Amalekites ahead of time.

I will add in time 3 more explanations of the next 3 scriptures critics like to pick out. I'll post this first one. Feel free to add more details for the new in faith.

clearly, this atheist does not know how to read the Bible contextually. The actions of Man produced the Law. it was the man who murdered, lied, stole, hated, cheated, etc.. God said do not do these things and tried to warn man not to. HE told Cain Sin is at the door wanting to take you DON"T Let HIM take you. It was not God who went against the natural order of things it was man.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

The reason you think they are self-defeating is due to humanistic presuppositions about man's alleged free-will.

Man doesn't have an autonomous, libertarian free will.

Additionally, in essence you deny unconditional election, which is plainly taught in Scripture.

Libertarian free will is Biblical not humanistic. And no unconditional election isnt taught in scripture.

I have refuted that many times and so has others dealing with the Tulip doctrine.

I will be responding to each of your posts so you may want to wait to respond in order to get the full message.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Imputed righteousness is the concept that the believers' only source of justifying righteousness is to be given the gift of Jesus' righteousness as a asset.

Charles Finney denied this. He considered it absurd that Jesus' legal performance before God would be attributed to the believer.

He knew the teaching clearly, yet rejected it. I can see someone being ignorant of it, yet understanding justification by grace in some way, but Finney demonstrated a clear understanding of it, yet rejected it.

Yet, he is the hero of many free-willers.

As I said before. This is your opinion until you provide evidence of his beliefs.

But even if you did I didn't believe in free will revelation from Finney but scripture and reality.

So regardless of what he believed it doesn't affect my theology. I would assume you believe Calvin and obviously I believe much of his theology was ignorant.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

By the way, prove to me your presupposition of libertarian free will from the Bible.

In other words, show me that God never exerts an external influence upon man's will to bring him to faith. Show me that he doesn't change man's nature in order to cause a faith response.


You need to show me that man has more than a creaturely free will.

In other words, prove your free will presuppositions.

And, it doesn't help to show me commands, with the assumption that individuals can perform those commands. God asks the man to do the impossible to show to him his helplessness.

By the way, the heretic Pelagius used the same reasoning. If God commands something, then the man must be able to do this command. That was his reasoning.

You want to go on this merry-go-round all over again? I have posted many scriptures, context, and research. But you have already ignored, denied, or tried to explain it. You have been given a books worth of evidence from me and others. So obviously scripture isnt going to persuade you.

But just in case you missed my in depth defense. You can find it on my thread. https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/the-absence-of-free-will.187333

The OP goes into depth and the next few pages defends the OP.

show me that God never exerts an external influence upon man's will to bring him to faith.

Never said he didn't. I believe the Holy Spirit draws all mankind so that none are without excuse.

Show me that he doesn't change man's nature in order to cause a faith response.

Also never said he didn't. I dont believe in total depravity as in a human cannot hear or see God in less God forces them to.

You need to show me that man has more than a creaturely free will.

This is sounding much like the atheist. It would be very interesting for you to explain moral law and how it is self evident in all mankind including as in your words the non elect. If we are just animals acting on instincts and environment then moral wouldn't exist or matter.

And, it doesn't help to show me commands, with the assumption that individuals can perform those commands.

This is so illogical. This tells me you do see all the commands and scriptures about choice but you hold to Calvinistic poster scriptures and filter all other scriptures through those few.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Libertarian free will is Biblical not humanistic. And no unconditional election isnt taught in scripture.

I have refuted that many times and so has others dealing with the Tulip doctrine.

I will be responding to each of your posts so you may want to wait to respond in order to get the full message.

I have provided Scriptures proving that God has an elect and that he has given these individuals to his Son, who atones for their sins. The Holy Spirit applies this atonement in time.

As I have said, I believe free-willers will simply keep attempting to apply "rescue devices" to their defective theology and won't discard their traditions.

Their decisional regeneration nonsense is simply a product of post-Reformation teachings, especially popularized by Charles Finney and the New Method people.

Unfortunately, since Pentecostalism and Arminian Baptists are the majority in America, it is the accepted norm. Additionally, liberal theologians have added to the more extreme expressions of it.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

I've already produced numerous Scriptures to prove that God has an elect people, which he has given the Son, and the Son died for them. The Scriptures clearly state that Jesus died for "the sheep".

I realize there are Scriptures which say that Jesus died for "all" and that he draws "all", but in the context of the early church, there was a conception that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews only.

The apostles continually refuted this claim by referring to "all". He died for all kinds of people, Jew and Gentile, powerful and weak.

This is the only way you can make sense of the two kinds of verses.

Additionally, the Day of Atonement related to the atonement of Jesus. The atonement sacrifice of Leviticus 16 was only effective for the nation of Israel, not the surrounding Gentile nations.

By the way, the universal atonement of free-willers is not a real atonement; it only makes possible forgiveness of sins. It does not cause forgiveness of sins. Therefore, it is no atonement at all.


The limited atonement ACTUALLY saved God's elect. This is a real atonement.

I have thoroughly covered that on my limited atonement thread.

When it comes down to it, the god of free-willers is a god which does not accomplish his purpose. Period. He makes it possible for his purpose to be acccomplished theoretically, but does not accomplish it. His purpose can be thwarted, because the man and his alleged free will holds the trump card. I don't worship powerless gods.

Your scriptures are true but your interpretation is false.

I realize there are Scriptures which say that Jesus died for "all" and that he draws "all", but in the context of the early church, there was a conception that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews only.

The apostles continually refuted this claim by referring to "all". He died for all kinds of people, Jew and Gentile, powerful and weak.

Well the Jews only concept was heavily refuted by Paul. And okay you say all scriptures that say all is a mistranslation. Right?

Okay prove it.

You say the Apostles as in the main disciples of Jesus refuted it. Right?

Okay prove it.

Additionally, the Day of Atonement related to the atonement of Jesus. The atonement sacrifice of Leviticus 16 was only effective for the nation of Israel, not the surrounding Gentile nations.

By the way, the universal atonement of free-willers is not a real atonement; it only makes possible forgiveness of sins. It does not cause forgiveness of sins. Therefore, it is no atonement at all.

Hold are you saying the gentiles has no way for forgiveness of sins but only possible forgiveness???

You may claim you dont worship the same God but obviously we read the same book. It is the same God. Same God but different understandings.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Also never said he didn't. I dont believe in total depravity as in a human cannot hear or see God in less God forces them to.

I've never claimed anything about "forcing". God changes the nature so that the person responds in faith and repentance.

I've also never made any remarks about people seeing or hearing God. You'll have to talk to Pentecostals or charismatics to find folks who make those claims...else that, or the mental institutions. I don't believe God talks to, or appears before people except in rare circumstances, most of which are recorded in Scripture. I"m one of the biggest skeptics about charismatic claims.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

I have provided Scriptures proving that God has an elect and that he has given these individuals to his Son, who atones for their sins. The Holy Spirit applies this atonement in time.

As I have said, I believe free-willers will simply keep attempting to apply "rescue devices" to their defective theology and won't discard their traditions.

Their decisional regeneration nonsense is simply a product of post-Reformation teachings, especially popularized by Charles Finney and the New Method people.

Unfortunately, since Pentecostalism and Arminian Baptists are the majority in America, it is the accepted norm. Additionally, liberal theologians have added to the more extreme expressions of it.

You provided scriptures with your twist in interpretation. That is all. I read the same book.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

I've never claimed anything about "forcing". God changes the nature so that the person responds in faith and repentance.

I've also never made any remarks about people seeing or hearing God. You'll have to talk to Pentecostals or charismatics to find folks who make those claims...else that, or the mental institutions. I don't believe God talks to, or appears before people except in rare circumstances, most of which are recorded in Scripture. I"m one of the biggest skeptics about charismatic claims.

God changes the nature so that the person responds in faith and repentance.

God can only change those who want to be changed. God acts in all mankind either by natural, supernatural, other people or His written Word. You cannot hold people guilty in less they freely deny the Savior.

I've also never made any remarks about people seeing or hearing God. You'll have to talk to Pentecostals or charismatics to find folks who make those claims...else that, or the mental institutions. I don't believe God talks to, or appears before people except in rare circumstances, most of which are recorded in Scripture. I"m one of the biggest skeptics about charismatic claims

I dont claim to be either of those denominations. But scripture does speak on being able to see God's actions in the world as natural revelations like the creation of the universe, or supernatural as in miracles or answers to prayers, or through people who give you a word at the right time and with no explanation, or how the written word just reveals revelations to us time and time again as we read the same passages but grow in understanding.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

God can only change those who want to be changed. God acts in all mankind either by natural, supernatural, other people or His written Word. You cannot hold people guilty in less they freely deny the Savior.



I dont claim to be either of those denominations. But scripture does speak on being able to see God's actions in the world as natural revelations like the creation of the universe, or supernatural as in miracles or answers to prayers, or through people who give you a word at the right time and with no explanation, or how the written word just reveals revelations to us time and time again as we read the same passages but grow in understanding.

By the way, I agree with the last paragraph.

The first paragraph is full of free-willer claims. As I have said, the mind of man doesn't want to change. He is perfectly content with being sinful. I have quoted numerous verses to support this corrupted nature.

Regarding holding people guilty for their sins, are you claiming that God cannot hold people guilty for their sins, whether they know about Jesus or not? If so, then are you claiming that all who existed before Jesus are somehow not held accountable for their sins, and totally innocent of them?

How do you work that out? My understanding is because man is created in the image of God, at some level, they are aware of their evil.

Are you claiming there were be some judgment of the unrighteous unevangelized, or that God somehow had the gospel preached to everyone who has ever lived?

By the way, Acts says that the door to the Gentile salvation was opened at that time, not before. So, I fail to see how that could happen.

So, in essence, the first paragraph of this post is full of speculation at best.

By the way, do you think Nebuchadnezzar or Paul wanted to be changed? Nebuchadnezzar was reduced to the level of an animal and humiliated before he was ready to proclaim God's excellency. Paul was blinded and thrown off his horse on the road to Damascus before he was humbled. I think you have some feminized view of God who conforms to the parameters you deem to be acceptable.

Postomdernism

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Reformed theology doesn't believe God uses "force". God changes the nature, so that the person has a heart of flesh, rather than a heart of stone. The heart of stone cannot respond to God in faith and repentance.

Memes of free-willers showing men bashing down a door with a ram are ridiculous propaganda. If you get your theology from free-willers, you will end up being a biblical ignoramus.

Free-willer theology puts too much confidence in the fallen nature of man to provide a spiritual response. There is no chance of such a response.

Their theology is backwards. God needs to change the nature to enable the response.

Man's heart is deceitfully wicked. I suggest reading Romans 7-8, Jeremiah 17:9, Ephesians 2:1-10 and seriously thinking about the verses.

A diseased tree cannot bring forth good fruit, and faith and repentance are certainly a good fruit.

Humanistic presuppositions are dishonoring to God.

God changes the nature, so that the person has a heart of flesh, rather than a heart of stone. The heart of stone cannot respond to God in faith and repentance.

How does changing of nature omit free will? If a man can harden his on heart but on rare occasions in scripture God finished the hardening does that automatically imply that man didn't have a choice to further walk away from God or surrender to God?

People have responded to God way before they was officially saved. Our hearts are wicked but not totally depraved or else we wouldn't be guilty if we was just animals with no soulish conscious and no moral law in us.

New believers speak on this often how at times they had experiences that made them think or ponder God but still rebelled until later finally surrendering.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

How does changing of nature omit free will? If a man can harden his on heart but on rare occasions in scripture God finished the hardening does that automatically imply that man didn't have a choice to further walk away from God or surrender to God?

People have responded to God way before they was officially saved. Our hearts are wicked but not totally depraved or else we wouldn't be guilty if we was just animals with no soulish conscious and no moral law in us.

New believers speak on this often how at times they had experiences that made them think or ponder God but still rebelled until later finally surrendering.

The changing of the nature doesn't negate the fact that mankind has "creaturely free will". This is free will that is exercised within the parameters of their character or nature.

Christ said that a good tree does not produce bad fruit, and a bad tree does not produce good fruit.

Regarding total depravity, a better term would be "radical corruption". In other words, mankind has been corrupted in every part of his being. It does not mean that mankind is as evil as he could be.

But, no human is looking for God of his own accord. Romans 3 clearly teaches this.

The reason people ponder about God is because they are made for religion. God created them to be spiritual by nature, but instead of filling this capacity with God, they fill it with other things including pagan religion or a vague concern about God. That doesn't negate their radical corruption, though.

And..part of being created in the image of God is the fact that they do have a conscience. If you want to call that a "moral law" which is embedded in the human conscience, fine. But, they don't conform to their own law, and by that standard they know they are transgressing against it. Romans 2 talks about this.

In the end, though, Romans 3 indicates that ALL are under sin, and "under sin" is shorthand for being under the bondage of sin. They are not free, as autonomous or libertarian free will would indicate. The will, along with every other part of man, is corrupted.

It seems like you have a misconception of what Reformed theology teaches if you don't realize these things. Tim Keller has a good commentary on Romans 1-7 that would explain almost every point you brought up. It is called Romans 1-7 for You.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

By the way, I agree with the last paragraph.

The first paragraph is full of free-willer claims. As I have said, the mind of man doesn't want to change. He is perfectly content with being sinful. I have quoted numerous verses to support this corrupted nature.

Regarding holding people guilty for their sins, are you claiming that God cannot hold people guilty for their sins, whether they know about Jesus or not? If so, then are you claiming that all who existed before Jesus are somehow not held accountable for their sins, and totally innocent of them?

How do you work that out? My understanding is because man is created in the image of God, at some level, they are aware of their evil.

Are you claiming there were be some judgment of the unrighteous unevangelized, or that God somehow had the gospel preached to everyone who has ever lived?

By the way, Acts says that the door to the Gentile salvation was opened at that time, not before. So, I fail to see how that could happen.

So, in essence, the first paragraph of this post is full of speculation at best.

By the way, do you think Nebuchadnezzar or Paul wanted to be changed? Nebuchadnezzar was reduced to the level of an animal and humiliated before he was ready to proclaim God's excellency. Paul was blinded and thrown off his horse on the road to Damascus before he was humbled. I think you have some feminized view of God who conforms to the parameters you deem to be acceptable.

Postomdernism

The first paragraph is full of free-willer claims. As I have said, the mind of man doesn't want to change. He is perfectly content with being sinful. I have quoted numerous verses to support this corrupted nature.

You must not realize yes we are all imperfect sinners in the eyes of God. But even a unbeliever can be moral. Just not debt free. They are still damned without Christ but can respond to the supernatural revelation of the moral law. As seen in

Romans 2:14-16 New International Version (NIV)
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Regarding holding people guilty for their sins, are you claiming that God cannot hold people guilty for their sins, whether they know about Jesus or not? If so, then are you claiming that all who existed before Jesus are somehow not held accountable for their sins, and totally innocent of them?

I meant in your theology. The unelected theology makes mankind just animals. If so how can one be considered guilty by all the scriptures that call for unbelievers to respond and believe? How is God just when there isnt equal opportunity to be saved? This theology makes God to be the creator of evil.

To all who exist outside of the law. They as above are still subjected to the moral law and evidence in nature as explained in Romans 1 and 2. But by some different way they are judged justly but not unjustly on the fact that they didn't know the law or knew of Jesus.

Romans 5:12-13 New International Version (NIV)
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

Are you claiming there were be some judgment of the unrighteous unevangelized, or that God somehow had the gospel preached to everyone who has ever lived?

Yes.

Romans 1:18-20 New International Version (NIV)
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

do you think Nebuchadnezzar or Paul wanted to be changed?

As I have said I do believe God works in us. Sometimes just as Jonah but Jonah had the will to run. God made his life in a crisis. I believe Jonah could of kept rebelling but who in their right mind would after God showed him his power. God can be very persuasive at times but by no means supernaturally forced anyone to surrender to his will.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

You must not realize yes we are all imperfect sinners in the eyes of God. But even a unbeliever can be moral. Just not debt free. They are still damned without Christ but can respond to the supernatural revelation of the moral law. As seen in

Show me one moral man, by God's standards. The standard is Jesus Christ. All are condemned. Have you read the book of Romans?

Romans 2:14-16 New International Version (NIV)
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

What does Scripture say in Romans 3? Or, did you read that far? You apparently don't know the conclusion of Paul's argument. Hint: Paul said all are convicted of sin.

I meant in your theology. The unelected theology makes mankind just animals. If so how can one be considered guilty by all the scriptures that call for unbelievers to respond and believe? How is God just when there isnt equal opportunity to be saved? This theology makes God to be the creator of evil.

Incorrect. Humans are created in the image of God. I never claimed they were animals. Does God owe everyone the opportunity for salvation? Do you think that God gives the guy in Saudi Arabia the same chance to hear the gospel that you have? How does the theology make God the creator of evil? That's just a line you are repeating like a parrot from others. God didn't create evil, although he created beings who became evil. By the way, you are claiming that God is entitled to extend mercy to all, therefore mercy is something which God MUST extend to all.

To all who exist outside of the law. They as above are still subjected to the moral law and evidence in nature as explained in Romans 1 and 2. But by some different way they are judged justly but not unjustly on the fact that they didn't know the law or knew of Jesus.

Romans 5:12-13 New International Version (NIV)
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.



Yes.

Romans 1:18-20 New International Version (NIV)
God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



As I have said I do believe God works in us. Sometimes just as Jonah but Jonah had the will to run. God made his life in a crisis. I believe Jonah could of kept rebelling but who in their right mind would after God showed him his power. God can be very persuasive at times but by no means supernaturally forced anyone to surrender to his will.

It's funny to me how you realize that God can force the situation with Jonah, Paul, and Nebuchadnezzar and bring them to repentance, but you somehow think God can't do that for everyone he intends to do it, which is all mankind. Somehow he was able to bring these guys to repentance, but can't bring others to repentance.

Yet, you claim God must give everyone an equal opportunity for salvation. Do you think that the Amorite high priest in Moses' day had the same opportunity for salvation as Moses? How about Pharaoh? And, every single Egyptian? Do you believe that any one of the people who drown in the Flood had the same advantages as Noah and his family?

I don't. I don't think God is entitled to give anyone salvation, nor do I think he owes them an equal opportunity. I don't think the guy in Saudi Arabia, who lived in a Muslim society and memorized the Qur'an as a child, had the same opportunity as me.

So, I'll ask you..where do you find this in Scripture? If you base your theology only on Scripture, and not on philosophical reasoning, where do you find this idea that everyone has had the same opportunity for salvation?

By the way, Romans 1:20 only provides general revelation. It is enough to know that God exists, and to make us morally accountable to Him. It is not enough to know about Jesus and the atonement which is available through Him.

See notes above.

As I have said, he changes the nature of the person, giving them a heart of flesh, so that they produce the fruit of faith and repentance WILLINGLY.

This language of "forcing" is a kooky claim by free-willers. It is a strawman.

Although I could add that God has brought people into submission by means such as Nebuchadnezzar and Paul.

By the way, I was inferring Romans 2 in my description.

No one claims that some men exercise civic virtue, either. That has nothing to do with radical corruption (total depravity).

Total depravity teaches that man has been radically corrupted in every part of his nature. It does not mean that man is as evil as he could be in every area of his life.

You are the one on another thread who took care to define your terms, yet you impute faulty definitions to Reformed theology in order to criticize it.

This language of "forcing" is a constant one. Goofy free-willer memes are not the place to get your definitions.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

See notes above.

As I have said, he changes the nature of the person, giving them a heart of flesh, so that they produce the fruit of faith and repentance WILLINGLY.

This language of "forcing" is a kooky claim by free-willers. It is a strawman.

Although I could add that God has brought people into submission by means such as Nebuchadnezzar and Paul.

By the way, I was inferring Romans 2 in my description.

No one claims that some men exercise civic virtue, either. That has nothing to do with radical corruption (total depravity).

Total depravity teaches that man has been radically corrupted in every part of his nature. It does not mean that man is as evil as he could be in every area of his life.

You are the one on another thread who took care to define your terms, yet you impute faulty definitions to Reformed theology in order to criticize it.

This language of "forcing" is a constant one. Goofy free-willer memes are not the place to get your definitions.

Well obviously this has become a agree to disagree as we are both grounded in our theology. I will help others to see the Tulip theological flaws but as for you my time is wasted. We could refute each other until Christ returns and what would it gain? Nothing.

Back to the Great Awakenings. They all began due to people of different denominations coming together to reach the lost with the simple Gospel. The Great Awakenings are a evident proof how God works in modern denominations.

We may not all agree 100% on theology but if we want to save the lost and the culture we better unite behind Christ.

I am positive none of us are 100% accurate in theology including you. Why make enemies over theology when we all want the same thing? To save the lost through Christ Jesus. This is why we evangelize.

As I said I can see the bigger picture. We have a crying and desperate culture looking for answers and hope. And the Bible has those answers. The body of Christ divided over small interpretations is absurd. We are too busy fighting and too much pride to admit we all may not have all the answers to theology.

It is time to love your neighbors and unite instead of hate and separate. We do not need over zealous people who believe it is their way or the highway to Hell. Because obviously theology has been debated since Christ ascended to Heaven. So it is obvious that it will still be debated today.

 

[stillness]

Here is a quote from a leading New Age Atheist.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.​

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Due to confusion from other threads on this very issue. I will in detail speak on this issue.

Most Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God. To be true. And God to have certain characteristics like all loving but also all just. This is the typical belief. And for the time being I will assume we do not need to go into Biblical evidence or on how we can know the Bible to be true. I will start with that conclusion that the Bible is 100% true.

So with this in mind it is intellectually honest for people to question scriptures that deal with the killing of woman, children, God causing miscarriages, or a raped woman is forced to marry the rapist, or even slavery is brought up by critics. Now remember we say the Bible is true and the Word of God.

I will list 1 example of each.

1 Samuel 15:2-3, 8 New International Version (NIV)

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.

Numbers 5:21-22 New International Version (NIV)
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Those verses will fill your church pews wont they?

I'll start with 1 Samuel 15.

Let us remember God is Holy. A Holy being is perfect. God cannot sin but is all good and loving. But being Holy he must be just because sin cannot dwell with God. Adam cursed all of mankind.

Romans 5:12 New International Version (NIV)
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Was the Amalekites innocent? In God's eyes no one is innocent in less you in the OT followed the ceremonial sacrifices or in the NT put faith in Christ who became the ultimate sacrifice.

This was a point in history, a season in history, where God is the immediate king of a people, Israel, different than the way he is the king over the church, which is from all the peoples of Israel and does not have a political, ethnic dimension to it.

With Joshua there was a political, ethnic dimension, God was immediate king, and he uses this people as his instrument to accomplish his judgment in the world at that time.

The Amalekites was heavily pagan and seeping so deep in demonic evil for a very long time and God patiently waited as he does with any nations judgement in the OT. Their time had ran out and when God decides to judge a nation he is Just for doing so.

When God takes life he isn't a murderer but is well within his resume as the creator of life. Dealing with the Amalekites, Saul failed to kill all as God commanded and the Amalekites just a couple of decades later, there were enough to take David and his men’s families captive (1 Samuel 30:1-2). After David and his men attacked the Amalekites and rescued their families, 400 Amalekites escaped.

If Saul had fulfilled what God had commanded him, this never would have occurred. Several hundred years later, a descendant of Agag, Haman, tried to have the entire Jewish people exterminated (see the book of Esther).

So, Saul’s incomplete obedience almost resulted in Israel’s destruction. God knew this would occur, so He ordered the extermination of the Amalekites ahead of time.

I will add in time 3 more explanations of the next 3 scriptures critics like to pick out. I'll post this first one. Feel free to add more details for the new in faith.

God responds to us according to the condition of our heart. If we aproch Him with an idol in our heart, He will let us be deceived. We are not for real appart from the Love of God, and by your question dont seem to comprehend a Loving creator taking the blame for His creation. Love to the point of folly for His beloved. But you sound like you would rather remain im charge of your old life and go on in a war kingdom agaimst Kingdom. Regardless we will live to see it im my lifetime and i am 64. "A time of trouble such as never was and shall never be again, for it is coming uppon a people as a testimony againt them."

 

[Dibby53]

Your understanding of God's character is based on part of one verse? That's willfully blind. Read the whole Bible, and form your view of God's character based on the complete revelation.

My understanding is based on my personal relationship with God. Also, the "complete" revelation of God's character is Jesus as seen in the gospels. If it doesn't look like Jesus then it isn't God. Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me. For to such is the kingdom of God". So slaughtering them in the promised land is not God, but an act of evil.