Is God A Moral Monster?
- Thread starter Roughsoul1991
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It's funny how you preach unity when you have targeted your posts to refute Reformed theology.
I think that free-willers do that, until they meet reasonable resistance. Then, they start preaching unity and attempting to shut the mouths of those who don't agree with their theology.
One of the problems with being united with people who deny radical corruption is that they are busy telling folks that their sin isn't that bad, and that they are, perhaps, only partially corrupted by the Fall, not totally corrupted by the Fall. This minimizes the need for their regeneration, and leads to a misunderstanding of the true nature of man in "evangelism".
By the way, Charles Finney, perhaps the most prominent free-willer, intentionally discredited the sounder, Reformed pastors in the areas that he preached in, and then "evangelized" folks. This led to a situation where the alleged evangelized new believers had no place for discipleship, because he had discredited the Reformed leadership in the cities he visited.
I don't think there can be a real partnership between radical, non-Reformed individuals and Reformed individuals. Because, evangelism isn't just preaching a message to someone. The evangelist has the responsibility to help that person find a sound place to fellowship, and if you and I don't agree on that, and we are "ministry partners", we wouldn't be able to lead that person to a sound place.
But, as I said, you have intentionally tried to degrade Reformed theology. This is largely because you don't agree with radical corruption, therefore you cannot realize the depth of the person's need for regeneration, and their helplessness before God to realize their situation, let alone acknowledge the source of their potential deliverance.
Anyways, my main point is that I now realize that there is a gulf of difference between my understanding of radical corruption (total depravity) and your version of it, which I would call "partial depravity".
Here's a message if you really want to understand what I am talking about:
At any rate, if you really think peace is gained by tolerance, then simply stop arguing with me and allow me to proclaim my position in this regard.
You guys won't do that though..I'm confident of that
By the way, my view is that free-willer theology is dishonoring to God, and proposes an emasculated god. It also minimizes the reality of the radical corruption which is the result of the Fall. Instead, they pamper the sinner, and encourage him in the idea that his situation isn't as dire as the Reformed people say.
But what does the Bible teach?
Read Romans, especially Romans 1-3.
I think that free-willers do that, until they meet reasonable resistance. Then, they start preaching unity and attempting to shut the mouths of those who don't agree with their theology.
One of the problems with being united with people who deny radical corruption is that they are busy telling folks that their sin isn't that bad, and that they are, perhaps, only partially corrupted by the Fall, not totally corrupted by the Fall. This minimizes the need for their regeneration, and leads to a misunderstanding of the true nature of man in "evangelism".
By the way, Charles Finney, perhaps the most prominent free-willer, intentionally discredited the sounder, Reformed pastors in the areas that he preached in, and then "evangelized" folks. This led to a situation where the alleged evangelized new believers had no place for discipleship, because he had discredited the Reformed leadership in the cities he visited.
I don't think there can be a real partnership between radical, non-Reformed individuals and Reformed individuals. Because, evangelism isn't just preaching a message to someone. The evangelist has the responsibility to help that person find a sound place to fellowship, and if you and I don't agree on that, and we are "ministry partners", we wouldn't be able to lead that person to a sound place.
But, as I said, you have intentionally tried to degrade Reformed theology. This is largely because you don't agree with radical corruption, therefore you cannot realize the depth of the person's need for regeneration, and their helplessness before God to realize their situation, let alone acknowledge the source of their potential deliverance.
Anyways, my main point is that I now realize that there is a gulf of difference between my understanding of radical corruption (total depravity) and your version of it, which I would call "partial depravity".
Here's a message if you really want to understand what I am talking about:
At any rate, if you really think peace is gained by tolerance, then simply stop arguing with me and allow me to proclaim my position in this regard.
You guys won't do that though..I'm confident of that
By the way, my view is that free-willer theology is dishonoring to God, and proposes an emasculated god. It also minimizes the reality of the radical corruption which is the result of the Fall. Instead, they pamper the sinner, and encourage him in the idea that his situation isn't as dire as the Reformed people say.
But what does the Bible teach?
Read Romans, especially Romans 1-3.
By the way, I spent quite a bit of effort with an individual in a substance abuse ministry.
He was probably the most promising individual, in my mind, that I encountered in the two years I was involved with this ministry.
Because my church congregation, which is more or less Reformed, was almost an hour away, I was unable to spend time with him in a significant way after he was released. He started attending a free-willer church.
The free-willer church has a substance abuse program, and he was leading some of the classes.
Now he's shacking up with a woman. I don't know if he is still leading some of the classes, but I know that the person he is shacking up with is also involved in the church, and I'm pretty sure the pastor knows they are shacking up.
This doesn't lend to a positive perception of free-willer churches on my part, nor does it lend to me cooperating in ministry with free-willers. We don't see this sort of thing in Reformed churches, at least not the ones of my acquaintance.
So, I don't plan on cooperating with free-willers in ministry in any tangible way in evangelism efforts. In fact, I'm no longer involved in the substance abuse related ministry, and part of the reason is due to the fact that free-willers dominate the organization. I can tell a group one thing, and other chaplain aides will distort or deny it.
As an example, the head of the ministry is a charismatic and he convinces prisoners that they have "soul-connections" with every person they have had sex with. They need to be "delivered" from these soul-connections through some deliverance ceremony. Of course, there are any number of "witch doctors" willing to provide such services.
It's really very frustrating to cooperate with kooky Christians who hold those types of beliefs, especially if they are in control.
He was probably the most promising individual, in my mind, that I encountered in the two years I was involved with this ministry.
Because my church congregation, which is more or less Reformed, was almost an hour away, I was unable to spend time with him in a significant way after he was released. He started attending a free-willer church.
The free-willer church has a substance abuse program, and he was leading some of the classes.
Now he's shacking up with a woman. I don't know if he is still leading some of the classes, but I know that the person he is shacking up with is also involved in the church, and I'm pretty sure the pastor knows they are shacking up.
This doesn't lend to a positive perception of free-willer churches on my part, nor does it lend to me cooperating in ministry with free-willers. We don't see this sort of thing in Reformed churches, at least not the ones of my acquaintance.
So, I don't plan on cooperating with free-willers in ministry in any tangible way in evangelism efforts. In fact, I'm no longer involved in the substance abuse related ministry, and part of the reason is due to the fact that free-willers dominate the organization. I can tell a group one thing, and other chaplain aides will distort or deny it.
As an example, the head of the ministry is a charismatic and he convinces prisoners that they have "soul-connections" with every person they have had sex with. They need to be "delivered" from these soul-connections through some deliverance ceremony. Of course, there are any number of "witch doctors" willing to provide such services.
It's really very frustrating to cooperate with kooky Christians who hold those types of beliefs, especially if they are in control.
It's funny how you preach unity when you have targeted your posts to refute Reformed theology.
I think that free-willers do that, until they meet reasonable resistance. Then, they start preaching unity and attempting to shut the mouths of those who don't agree with their theology.
One of the problems with being united with people who deny radical corruption is that they are busy telling folks that their sin isn't that bad, and that they are, perhaps, only partially corrupted by the Fall, not totally corrupted by the Fall. This minimizes the need for their regeneration, and leads to a misunderstanding of the true nature of man in "evangelism".
By the way, Charles Finney, perhaps the most prominent free-willer, intentionally discredited the sounder, Reformed pastors in the areas that he preached in, and then "evangelized" folks. This led to a situation where the alleged evangelized new believers had no place for discipleship, because he had discredited the Reformed leadership in the cities he visited.
I don't think there can be a real partnership between radical, non-Reformed individuals and Reformed individuals. Because, evangelism isn't just preaching a message to someone. The evangelist has the responsibility to help that person find a sound place to fellowship, and if you and I don't agree on that, and we are "ministry partners", we wouldn't be able to lead that person to a sound place.
But, as I said, you have intentionally tried to degrade Reformed theology. This is largely because you don't agree with radical corruption, therefore you cannot realize the depth of the person's need for regeneration, and their helplessness before God to realize their situation, let alone acknowledge the source of their potential deliverance.
Anyways, my main point is that I now realize that there is a gulf of difference between my understanding of radical corruption (total depravity) and your version of it, which I would call "partial depravity".
Here's a message if you really want to understand what I am talking about:
At any rate, if you really think peace is gained by tolerance, then simply stop arguing with me and allow me to proclaim my position in this regard.
You guys won't do that though..I'm confident of that
By the way, my view is that free-willer theology is dishonoring to God, and proposes an emasculated god. It also minimizes the reality of the radical corruption which is the result of the Fall. Instead, they pamper the sinner, and encourage him in the idea that his situation isn't as dire as the Reformed people say.
But what does the Bible teach?
Read Romans, especially Romans 1-3.
I think that free-willers do that, until they meet reasonable resistance. Then, they start preaching unity and attempting to shut the mouths of those who don't agree with their theology.
One of the problems with being united with people who deny radical corruption is that they are busy telling folks that their sin isn't that bad, and that they are, perhaps, only partially corrupted by the Fall, not totally corrupted by the Fall. This minimizes the need for their regeneration, and leads to a misunderstanding of the true nature of man in "evangelism".
By the way, Charles Finney, perhaps the most prominent free-willer, intentionally discredited the sounder, Reformed pastors in the areas that he preached in, and then "evangelized" folks. This led to a situation where the alleged evangelized new believers had no place for discipleship, because he had discredited the Reformed leadership in the cities he visited.
I don't think there can be a real partnership between radical, non-Reformed individuals and Reformed individuals. Because, evangelism isn't just preaching a message to someone. The evangelist has the responsibility to help that person find a sound place to fellowship, and if you and I don't agree on that, and we are "ministry partners", we wouldn't be able to lead that person to a sound place.
But, as I said, you have intentionally tried to degrade Reformed theology. This is largely because you don't agree with radical corruption, therefore you cannot realize the depth of the person's need for regeneration, and their helplessness before God to realize their situation, let alone acknowledge the source of their potential deliverance.
Anyways, my main point is that I now realize that there is a gulf of difference between my understanding of radical corruption (total depravity) and your version of it, which I would call "partial depravity".
Here's a message if you really want to understand what I am talking about:
At any rate, if you really think peace is gained by tolerance, then simply stop arguing with me and allow me to proclaim my position in this regard.
You guys won't do that though..I'm confident of that
By the way, my view is that free-willer theology is dishonoring to God, and proposes an emasculated god. It also minimizes the reality of the radical corruption which is the result of the Fall. Instead, they pamper the sinner, and encourage him in the idea that his situation isn't as dire as the Reformed people say.
But what does the Bible teach?
Read Romans, especially Romans 1-3.
Dont know who told you that but no I believe sin is sin regardless if free will is involved. We are totally dead without Christ. Just more of your smear tactics.
Glad your atleast honest. So does your Calvinist church shunn and refute every other denomination down the street? Or is just yall who are the chosen elect? Surely you do not believe I am elected or else you would unite with me. If you dont unite with the elect then you must believe they are unelected.
The evangelist can lead them by just sharing the words the literal Gospel without going into detail. As they grasp that then they can freely go to either denomination that fits their interpretation. Easy and has been done this way for centuries.
As I said tolerance to a degree. Obviously scripture does speak on false teachers and false Gospels. I just do not see this topic to be so extreme that we must treat the other group as a enemy to the Bible.
I dont have a problem with debate but I feel like you are doing more than debating which is obvious from your quotes above. You have put yourself above all others and say believe my interpretation or die in Hell. Because if you follow your theology a elect wouldn't contradict the elect for they know God and the sheep hear his voice.
Nice opinion. No one pampers the sinner. You burn in Hell for sin with no Atoning sacrifice with free will just as much in your view. Sin is sin regardless if you go one extreme further.
So to clarify if you was debating I am great with that but when you begin to insult me by saying I am dishonoring God then you are no longer debating. I have learned much of your theology and you are not convincing nor being convinced so nothing would be gained for me to keep pumping out scripture and interpretations. My time would be best to let you exclude yourself in your theological corner while us the other denominations or interpretations continue to reach the lost.
-
1
- Show all
Does the Bible say shacking up is okay? No it does not. Free will doesn't negate scripture. Sexual immorality is quite simple Gospel as it is quite clear that God hates it.
So blame the individual not the theology.
Sorry but every theological denomination has corruption somewhere. We still live in a fallin world. No church is safe from corruption.
Again sexual immorality is quite clear.
So blame the individual not the theology.
Sorry but every theological denomination has corruption somewhere. We still live in a fallin world. No church is safe from corruption.
Again sexual immorality is quite clear.
-
1
- Show all
True enough.
However, his pastor apparently hasn't addressed it, and seems to support it.
This particular denomination allows homosexual members so I shouldn't be surprised. I do not think homosexuals are the "untouchables" but at the same time, allowing openly homosexual members is not biblical.
I had a talk with the pastor before the guy started to attend the church. I was being "ecumenical" and all. I didn't learn until later that they ordain women ministers and allow homosexual members.
"Free willer" theology is still erroneous, though, and leads to a more positive anthropology than the reality. That is the trend in free willer churches. Get as many butts in the pews as you can, regardless of whether they are given a realistic assessment of their fallen nature, and their helplessness before God and his need for their mercy. That is part of the reason why there are so many goats in the church.
However, his pastor apparently hasn't addressed it, and seems to support it.
This particular denomination allows homosexual members so I shouldn't be surprised. I do not think homosexuals are the "untouchables" but at the same time, allowing openly homosexual members is not biblical.
I had a talk with the pastor before the guy started to attend the church. I was being "ecumenical" and all. I didn't learn until later that they ordain women ministers and allow homosexual members.
"Free willer" theology is still erroneous, though, and leads to a more positive anthropology than the reality. That is the trend in free willer churches. Get as many butts in the pews as you can, regardless of whether they are given a realistic assessment of their fallen nature, and their helplessness before God and his need for their mercy. That is part of the reason why there are so many goats in the church.
-
1
- Show all
If the pastor supports it then he needs to be fired. Sinners are welcomed regardless if it is homosexuality or a adulterer. But yes to continuously practice sinning with no change or repentance should be as Paul says to be released back into the world.
Woman ministers can be debated but practicing homosexual membership members is a strict no.
You may say free will theology leads a church to your end analyst but my church is very by the book and I thank God my Pastor is brave enough to stand boldly against the culture.
Churches are ran by humans. Humans are not perfect and still fall into sin or corruption. No denomination will be perfect. But each will have its failures dealing with people.
Woman ministers can be debated but practicing homosexual membership members is a strict no.
You may say free will theology leads a church to your end analyst but my church is very by the book and I thank God my Pastor is brave enough to stand boldly against the culture.
Churches are ran by humans. Humans are not perfect and still fall into sin or corruption. No denomination will be perfect. But each will have its failures dealing with people.
-
1
- Show all
I,m looking at Jesus as presented in the gospels. I don't know how that is looking through blinders. You are a follower of Christ, not the partial revelation of the old testament. Jesus is what God looks like. I,ll ask again: would the Jesus who said that the kingdom of God belongs to little children condone their genocide in the promised land? Can you imagine it?
Yes, I am a follower of Christ, Who is the fulfillment of God's revelation and plan of salvation for humankind. However, He is not divorced from God's work in the OT. You are looking at Jesus through the limited scope of some interactions He had when He was on earth. Those few interactions don't represent the fullness of His character. He is the same God Whose Name is Jealous (Exodus 34:14), Who brings calamity (Jeremiah 14:16 and 32:42), Who takes vengeance on His adversaries and repays those who hate Him (Deuteronomy 32:41). Jesus Himself spoke of these things in parable form, but the Pharisees, against whom the parables were spoken, caught on and didn't appreciate the implications.
When you mentally distinguish Jesus from the God of the OT, you end up with an idol of your own making that is unworthy of worship and unable to save you.
When you understand God's plan and His work in the world, and you see that Jesus is God come in the flesh to pay the penalty for humankind's sin, maybe then you will be able to integrate the two and not feel like you're fighting your own moral sensitivities.
When you mentally distinguish Jesus from the God of the OT, you end up with an idol of your own making that is unworthy of worship and unable to save you.
When you understand God's plan and His work in the world, and you see that Jesus is God come in the flesh to pay the penalty for humankind's sin, maybe then you will be able to integrate the two and not feel like you're fighting your own moral sensitivities.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Yes, I am a follower of Christ, Who is the fulfillment of God's revelation and plan of salvation for humankind. However, He is not divorced from God's work in the OT. You are looking at Jesus through the limited scope of some interactions He had when He was on earth. Those few interactions don't represent the fullness of His character. He is the same God Whose Name is Jealous (Exodus 34:14), Who brings calamity (Jeremiah 14:16 and 32:42), Who takes vengeance on His adversaries and repays those who hate Him (Deuteronomy 32:41). Jesus Himself spoke of these things in parable form, but the Pharisees, against whom the parables were spoken, caught on and didn't appreciate the implications.
When you mentally distinguish Jesus from the God of the OT, you end up with an idol of your own making that is unworthy of worship and unable to save you.
When you understand God's plan and His work in the world, and you see that Jesus is God come in the flesh to pay the penalty for humankind's sin, maybe then you will be able to integrate the two and not feel like you're fighting your own moral sensitivities.
When you mentally distinguish Jesus from the God of the OT, you end up with an idol of your own making that is unworthy of worship and unable to save you.
When you understand God's plan and His work in the world, and you see that Jesus is God come in the flesh to pay the penalty for humankind's sin, maybe then you will be able to integrate the two and not feel like you're fighting your own moral sensitivities.
What a desperate attempt to make "free-will theology" the reason for these kinds of events. You do know that the Reformed are also involved in ecumenical apostasy and blessing sin? If you did not, google it, its there. No Church is immune to apostasy, it was prophecied to take place and we are seeing it now.
The way you are trying to falsely equate free-willers with tolerance to sin I might as well call you a muslim. Muslims believe in predestination, just like the Reformed do, therefore the Reformed are actually muslims. That is the kind of argumentation you are using.
To me this is not really an issue of debate I just feel like you did not deal fairly with free-willers as you call them, who are the majority of Church people of all denominations and stripes since day 1, I do not care one way or another what people believe about predestination, all I care about is righteousness in the Churches, so if they are teaching repentance the biblical way, I am satisfied. Reason I focus so much on that is because I feel like repentance has died in the churches. The protestants replaced repentance with doctrine and the idea that Jesus can't see your sins anymore (based on one verse, excluding the testimony of the book of Revelation, Acts and many other books including the total testimony of Scripture) and the catholics replaced repentance with their many rituals. Either way, repentance has suffered a great deal of inflation. Much like unemployed people are quick to find a job if they were facing starvation with no handouts, it is the same with repentance, if people knew and realized the seriousness of hellfire, there would be an instant season of godly sorrow leading to permanent change.
The way you are trying to falsely equate free-willers with tolerance to sin I might as well call you a muslim. Muslims believe in predestination, just like the Reformed do, therefore the Reformed are actually muslims. That is the kind of argumentation you are using.
To me this is not really an issue of debate I just feel like you did not deal fairly with free-willers as you call them, who are the majority of Church people of all denominations and stripes since day 1, I do not care one way or another what people believe about predestination, all I care about is righteousness in the Churches, so if they are teaching repentance the biblical way, I am satisfied. Reason I focus so much on that is because I feel like repentance has died in the churches. The protestants replaced repentance with doctrine and the idea that Jesus can't see your sins anymore (based on one verse, excluding the testimony of the book of Revelation, Acts and many other books including the total testimony of Scripture) and the catholics replaced repentance with their many rituals. Either way, repentance has suffered a great deal of inflation. Much like unemployed people are quick to find a job if they were facing starvation with no handouts, it is the same with repentance, if people knew and realized the seriousness of hellfire, there would be an instant season of godly sorrow leading to permanent change.
-
1
- Show all
Dont you think God went against Himself, making a way where there was no way. As its writen "The foulishness of God is wiser than the wisdkm of the wise of this world." Love to the point of folly for His beloved." Jesus being seperatsd from the Father in His death and as He died nulified the old covenant under law. As a loving creator taking the blame for His creation. "The day of vengeance of our God."
"Listen! In the Day of the Lord! The cry of the mighty will be bitter."
When Jesus said on the cross "It is finished," "God speaks of a New Covenant in His blood, means He made the old obsolete." "He came to deliver those who through fear of death were held their whole lifetime in bondage." When we think like men in the flesh and desire control, the enemy is given room to cause divisions. "From where come wars among you? Are they not from the lusts of the flesh." Those who desired control nullified their covenant with God. The old covenant could only be nullified by the death of the one who established it. "Had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory." "Had there been a law that could save us, salvation would have been by the law." But the law exposed our selfish motives to bring us to Christ, so that no man would glory in himself. That we may be a new creation cleansed in His blood. We are all united by His Grace to forgive and be forgiven. "The Love of Christ compels us, believing that Christ died for all, our old life is nullified so that we no longer live for ourselves but in Him who died and rose again. Therefore from now on we regard no one according to the flesh." "To this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."
"Listen! In the Day of the Lord! The cry of the mighty will be bitter."
When Jesus said on the cross "It is finished," "God speaks of a New Covenant in His blood, means He made the old obsolete." "He came to deliver those who through fear of death were held their whole lifetime in bondage." When we think like men in the flesh and desire control, the enemy is given room to cause divisions. "From where come wars among you? Are they not from the lusts of the flesh." Those who desired control nullified their covenant with God. The old covenant could only be nullified by the death of the one who established it. "Had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory." "Had there been a law that could save us, salvation would have been by the law." But the law exposed our selfish motives to bring us to Christ, so that no man would glory in himself. That we may be a new creation cleansed in His blood. We are all united by His Grace to forgive and be forgiven. "The Love of Christ compels us, believing that Christ died for all, our old life is nullified so that we no longer live for ourselves but in Him who died and rose again. Therefore from now on we regard no one according to the flesh." "To this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."
I,m fighting the attempt by some christians to make the genocide of whole tribes of people somehow moral. We all know this deep down. It is strange that before someone becomes Christian they would say unequivocally that it is wrong. Afterwards it is seen as somehow "right". So in a way it is a worse situation than before!