Death and Dying, part deux

[Depleted]

I only got to...page 4'ish of that thread and then went to get breakfast, as I stated, meaning to go back to finish reading it, but got caught up in this thread instead and never finished reading the other one. So I hadn't read this post. But I don't think lynn sharing her story is a bad thing. Her testimony is her testimony. And He will use her for whatever and whoever He knows will help certain people. I think it's wrong of you to say her testimony will chase people from God or paints a bad picture of God.

It also wasn't my full story. She just took what she wanted, changed it and pretended it was my point, all in the effort to prove... who knows? But it certainly proved a lot!

 

[Depleted]

What you have written here is the absolute and very sad truth.




-JGIG

And since the lies are being piled on by more lies, I'm leaving before I say what I'm thinking!

 

[trofimus]

I disagree. The post was put all in one quote box and then large portions snipped out here and there. It is not good.
I do however agree that it has been personal from a long while back on the parts of many posters in here. It is a spat being carried over from other threads I think.

I do it all the time when responding to long posts. Almost everybody does or else it would be impossible to track what is one responding to.

I agree that the post of JGIG should be more clear in that it is a composition, like using of "...", for example. But these are small things and to put legality etc into such conversation because of it is oversensitive.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Best to leave when you get angry at offenses, until you are calmer. Go kick some stuffed animals.
Lynn, I really do think JGIG will apologize for the way she did that posting.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I do it all the time when responding to long posts. Almost everybody does or else it would be impossible to track what is one responding to.

I agree that the post of JGIG should be more clear in that it is a composition, like using of "...", for example. But these are small things and to put legality etc into such conversation because of it is oversensitive.

I have NEVER seen you do a quote box in that manner.
Yes, we are all learning to bear offenses as our Lord did and yes, we all can be oversensitive at times.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I agree... that JGIG is... oversensitive.

Here is an example of me removing large portions of your post and pieces of sentences. Have I done well to do this and did you say what I have portrayed you to say?
Do you see my point?

 

[trofimus]

Here is an example of me removing large portions of your post and pieces of sentences. Have I done well to do this and did you say what I have portrayed you to say?
Do you see my point?

Ok, I see... But this was extreme.

Anyway, its just internet, we will be offended by something frequently.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Actually, I went back and compared Jgigs post and lynns original post and I DON'T see a single word removed...my mistake. Sorry JGIG.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Lynn, she DIDN'T alter your post. Your original post had all of the "...'s" and was a little fragmented looking.

Once again, JGIG, I'm sorry.

 

[Magenta]

To Calvin:

I was unable to find those quotes in my langauge, I have only shorter version of Institutes, wihout these additions where Calvin responded to counterarguments.

But when reading it in the context (in English, though), I am not sure what you think is wrong there. The use of the word "pleasure"? In context it does not say that God has a pleasure with the fall as such, but that He has a pleasure with the fall as a thing leading to better things.

But anyway, Calvin is not infallible, he can say as many error as he wants, I would still go to creeds or catechisms to define what some theological camp believes. There are hundres of millions of calvinists and of course, you can find some saying various things.

If people call themselves a Calvinist, then they have accepted the teachings of Calvin. I do not understand what the problem is, for people to complain when the teachings of Calvin are presented. If they disagree with Calvin, they should not call themselves Calvinists. Problem solved. I have said nothing about the man, only his teachings, and I have related what certain Calvinists on this very site have said repeatedly to me, personally, in this public forum, where they have said the exact same things, and similar things, to others. I have been dealing with what members here believe, as well as what Calvin taught. BOTH.

To "all, whole world" etc.:

Yeah, thats a tension between God's goodness and between God's final will. We would need to talk about specific verses.

Trofimus, I have related individual verses a number of times, and been told they are lies.

To Schrodinger's cat:

Its a picture of two opposite states to be true in the same time (the cat is both alive and dead) until the universe is forced to choose just one direction. Very interesting thing, I recommend to watch some youtube video about it

Maybe someday That day is probably not today

But maybe someday Thank you for the recommendation.

To God's sovereignity over circumstances:

When God is the one controlling our inner and outer circumstances, He is controlling our choices we make based on those cicumstances... thats what calvinists say, is it not? That our heart is in His hands and He directs it wherever He wishes.

Thats about His sovereignity. But also, He is a good God. Therefore His wishes for us are best possible. So its not just a fatalism, its a Christian fatalism - that a good God is in control. This produces peace in various circumstances.

The Calvinists I am acquainted with here present a god who is not a good god. The god they have presented to me is weak and unjust. I have not once seen or heard a Calvinist present what they believe in the way you have. But then, you do not call yourself a Calvinist any more? You have all along, as long as I have known you, seemed far more reasonable, to a remarkable degree, than the Calvinists I am acquainted with here. May I ask which points of Calvinism you disagree with, or why? I do not deny the sovereignty of God, nor His omnipotence, nor omniscience, nor the fact that everything is done for His glory, and His pleasure. I have mentioned these things already. All things being worked for the good of those who love Him, and etc. Nor am I a universalist. The blood of Jesus is applied only to those who believe, by grace, through faith, in His atoning sacrifice.

 

[trofimus]

If people call themselves a Calvinist, then they have accepted the teachings of Calvin. I do not understand what the problem is, for people to complain when the teachings of Calvin are presented. If they disagree with Calvin, they should not call themselves Calvinists. Problem solved. I have said nothing about the man, only his teachings, and I have related what certain Calvinists on this very site have said repeatedly to me, personally, in this public forum, where they have said the exact same things, and similar things, to others. I have been dealing with what members here believe, as well as what Calvin taught. BOTH.

I think that people who call themselves calvinist are not doing it for admiring Calvin so much. Calvin is not some kind of prophet (like SDA´ Ellen White) or some kind of pope like in the RCC.

Thats why people are not taking all his teachings or words but still consider themselves calvinist because they accept main points like 5 points of calvinism and some reformed creeds like the second helvetic confession (its rather European thing, I am sure in the USA there is some similar creed - probably westminster creed? Not sure).

The Calvinists I am acquainted with here present a god who is not a good god. The god they have presented to me is weak and unjust. I have not once seen or heard a Calvinist present what they believe in the way you have. But then, you do not call yourself a Calvinist any more? You have all along, as long as I have known you, seemed far more reasonable, to a remarkable degree, than the Calvinists I am acquainted with here. May I ask which points of Calvinism you disagree with, or why? I do not deny the sovereignty of God, nor His omnipotence, nor omniscience, nor the fact that everything is done for His glory, and His pleasure. I have mentioned these things already. All things being worked for the good of those who love Him, and etc. Nor am I a universalist. The blood of Jesus is applied only to those who believe, by grace, through faith, in His atoning sacrifice.

I still generally accept 5 points of calvinism. I think these points are biblical.

But I do not accept all the teaching around these points, explaining why God does it (well, calvinism does not have any good explanation anyway... just like "God can do whatever He wants")

Also, I do not think that calvinism has a good theory about how our choices and God´s predestination work together so that God is not active in our sins and we are responsible for our actions (both good and evil) but on the other hand God is micromanaging everything.

I found better (and more loving) system in Leibniz´ best world of all worlds hypothesis and I also try not to be closed in one theology or camp and therefore I try to merge all facts I can get (from science, physics, logic, theology etc) together so my views are not very traditional... lets say.
I have adopted this attitude also from Leibniz, who was a Lutheran but also a scientist, trying to merge together theology and knowledge about the universe.

 

[trofimus]

Maybe someday That day is probably not today

But maybe someday Thank you for the recommendation.

Look, this one has just 1:47

"Who is observing us ?"

[video=youtube;IOYyCHGWJq4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4[/video]

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Another wait time for drying so I want to talk about your second paragraph. Where is the quote from that you begin the paragraph with?

I believe that no evil can touch me unless God gives permission. That satan can't harm me or sift me unless he gets permission. I believe even as David did when the crazy man was throwing rocks at him and his guys said, let's go kick his butt and david said: no, don't you dare hurt him. If he is throwing rocks at me it's because God told him to (or as I read and understand it - God gave him permission to buffet me with rocks) and God has not told me what He's doing or what He means by this.

Hi SBG . . . hope you enjoyed your dinner with your friends. Sorry I couldn't get back until now.

I just happened to put that into quotes because that is what I see as being said. . . because Satan has to get "permission" then God is "allowing" evil to happen. You feel okay with that . . . I don't. And I don't believe that is what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches us that there is a war going on - a war between "good" and "evil" . . . We know who is going to win - it's already been prophesied - BUT in the "in-between" time, we are involved in a spiritual battle. In a war, there is an enemy . . . you have God working with, in concert, with His enemy - God allowing Satan to take "prisoners of war" (so to speak).

I have given ample - more than ample - examples of satan having to ask permission to touch Job, to sift peter. I guess you could view it as satan just asking permission out of politeness, even though he didn't have to get any permission, but I think everyone of us would laugh at THAT idea! So then you're left to grapple with why satan has asked permission to touch men when you say he doesn't have to ask that permission. But that's yours to do the grappling with. I believe he DOES have to ask permission to touch me and it will end in my great blessing, growth in trust, etc.

I don't know why God has let it all go on for as long as He has but I KNOW it's for the very best, wise and perfect of reasons and I know He will one day be praised for letting it go on exactly as long as He did, because all His ways are perfect. I don't know why He permitted what happened to you as a child. I only know He works all things for good to those who love Him and are called by Him. I also know that might make you mad to hear me say it. All things means all things.

I'm fine to disagree, but I have given ample examples of what scripture and bible stories have informed my thoughts, so you can't say I've not considered scripture in my opinions and thoughts.

I am really not grappling with anything . . . I know why what happened to me as a child happened, I know why my father was the way he was . . . the enemy tried to steal, kill, and destroy my life. And I KNOW that it wasn't because God consented to letting the enemy do that to me - It was because the enemy WANTED to do just that because those are his traits. Now, have things worked out for the good - yep . . . God took what was meant for evil perpetrated by the enemy and He turned it to the good.

Third paragraph - I would be interested to hear the verse when you find it that says God can't be in the presence of sin...because He was in the presence of Adam and Eve after they sinned and it says satan came to present himself before God in the book of Job. So I need the verse that negates these other verses and says God cannot be in the presence of sin.

I believe what I said in full context was: "and since God cannot be in the presence of sin (so I have heard said - can't ever find the verse). Must be because it's not there! LOL!

As to the statement that we are running with two verses that have satan asking permission, Wouldn't it be better to run with those two , which are in agreement, than to run with the ONE verse you currently do?

And...towards the end of your post, no I don't think God permits evil just so that He can turn it around for good. I believe if He permits any evil to touch us or satan to sift us, that it is in order to grow our trust, which is our most precious possession, or to bring great and eternal blessing and good to us and/or others. I've used examples from the bible of the blessing that resulted for Job by God giving that permission and of the blessing that resulted for you and I by God permitting men to torture and murder our Lord. They didn't murder Him because God wasn't in control because Jesus said no one took His life but He laid it down willingly and on purpose.

All good points to discuss and grapple with in this post of yours!

Two verses that have Satan asking permission. . . There are 66 books of the Bible. The conflict (battle, war) between God and Satan begins in Gen. 3:15 - And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel. Satan struck Jesus' heel and in so doing, is striking ours. It will end with Satan getting his head crushed.

The ONE verse I currently have? 1) the whole world lies in the control (power) of the evil one; 2) the god of this world blinds people to the gospel; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us for we are not ignorant of his devices (2 Cor. 2:11); Be sober, be vigilant because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8) . . . thought of a few more this morning - Put on the whole armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. (Eph. 6:11); In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one (Eph. 6:16); Resist the devil and he will flee from you (James 4:7b). Why all the exhortation, when God's going to "consent, permit, allow" it anyway? Now if we are fighting an enemy - we need encouragement when it comes to fighting the good fight, running the race . . . If God is "allowing" it in the first place - why do we need to fight and what are we fighting against - the enemy or God giving permission?

You are correct concerning Jesus - NOTHING would have stopped the crucifixion of Jesus - God said it would happen this way and it did. (Gen. 3:15) I also agree that if evil should happen to us that God will work in the situation and turn it for our good - You said: I don't believe God permits evil just so that He can turn it around for good. I believe if he permits any evil to touch us or Satan to sift us, that it is in order to grow our trust . . . or to bring great and eternal blessing and good to us and/or others." Yea, Satan went into the presence of God to ask permission to cause an accident so God said "okay" and "allowed, consented" to that drunk driver hitting another car and maiming the occupants so He could teach them a lesson, or build their faith . . .

 

[Lancelot]

What is it with me? When someone says God has the power to do anything, including sinning, which is what lying is, I will call whoever it is to the carpet.

To say God has the power to sin is heresy.

Well if you want to be juvenile about it, I could just as easily accuse you of heresy for denying the omnipotence of God. It's all semantics, really. Jesus is God, and He was tempted. In order to be a legitimate temptation He had to have had the capacity to yield to temptation, right? But He had the divine character necessary to overcome temptation, and that's what we're discussing - the difference between divine power and divine character.

 

[UnderGrace]

Fyi Stunned...

Paraphrasing or only using parts of a persons writing is not hearsay.

As well, words by someone who is entered his work in the public forum by writing a book, research article etc., should and can be critiqued on a public forum, just as our ideas on here can be critiqued, if this was not allowed the Universities and Colleges might as well pack up.

A dead person cannot claim any rights with regards to defamation or slander

While context is important it is perfectly acceptable to quote part of what some has said to support one's argument.

Certainly, the person using the quote has to ensure that the theme/idea of the quote is reflective and is indeed representative of the person's stance or beliefs and for that everyone has to do their own research rather than just call it lies

Yes, lynn, I wouldn't imagine many would actually read calvin because he is difficult to understand. His writing isn't modernized as some of the older spiritual works are. But I have so far found some real gems in his writing so I am willing to struggle through it and dig and labor to understand the arcane words he often uses.

Yes, I have noted the continual "calvin said, calvin said" thing going on with some and have puzzled over why they can't just have a conversation with someone. As you said, to keep bringing up calvin with people who've never even read calvin is...strange. As you know, it was only a few short months ago that I even looked into what TULIP means because I figured after more than 10 years of hearing it, maybe I finally had time to look it up. LOL!

Yes, I also do NOT like when any man, dead or alive, is being attacked based on what another website says about him. And when just a few words of a sentence are used (and ellipses, etc., like you say) instead of the mans complete sentence or hopefully even a paragraph or two for context, I refuse to perpetuate the hearsay and go straight to the horses mouth. I've done it with many men and women being spoken ill of because I feel it is the only respectful thing to do is to let a man speak for himself.

I don't agree that these people are tares just because they are not yet perfect in knowledge or have some inconsistencies or more to learn. I believe they are my brothers and sisters. I'm not against them. Even if I disagree on some things, I'm for them. I don't think you should make this a salvation issue and call them tares. I think you have gone way too far there.

 

[UnderGrace]

I agree it is about these two, divine character and divine power in terms of how God works his will on planet earth.

However, Jesus was God wrapped in human flesh so the temptation existed because of this, I am not sure we can reflect that back onto God and say God is tempted.

Saying that God could sin because of his power is just a bad premise from the start

Well if you want to be juvenile about it, I could just as easily accuse you of heresy for denying the omnipotence of God. It's all semantics, really. Jesus is God, and He was tempted. In order to be a legitimate temptation He had to have had the capacity to yield to temptation, right? But He had the divine character necessary to overcome temptation, and that's what we're discussing - the difference between divine power and divine character.

 

[Nehemiah6]

In order to be a legitimate temptation He had to have had the capacity to yield to temptation, right?

Not necessarily. The temptation may have been very real in the eyes of the Tempter (since he did not understand who Christ is), but for Jesus (who had no sin nature) the temptation was meaningless. God cannot be tempted to sin or do evil. Satan thought that because of His humanity and his fasting condition, Christ would be like any other man. But the Son of Man is also the Son of God.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Hi SBG . . . hope you enjoyed your dinner with your friends. Sorry I couldn't get back until now.

I just happened to put that into quotes because that is what I see as being said. . . because Satan has to get "permission" then God is "allowing" evil to happen. You feel okay with that . . . I don't. And I don't believe that is what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches us that there is a war going on - a war between "good" and "evil" . . . We know who is going to win - it's already been prophesied - BUT in the "in-between" time, we are involved in a spiritual battle. In a war, there is an enemy . . . you have God working with, in concert, with His enemy - God allowing Satan to take "prisoners of war" (so to speak).

I am really not grappling with anything . . . I know why what happened to me as a child happened, I know why my father was the way he was . . . the enemy tried to steal, kill, and destroy my life. And I KNOW that it wasn't because God consented to letting the enemy do that to me - It was because the enemy WANTED to do just that because those are his traits. Now, have things worked out for the good - yep . . . God took what was meant for evil perpetrated by the enemy and He turned it to the good.

I believe what I said in full context was: "and since God cannot be in the presence of sin (so I have heard said - can't ever find the verse). Must be because it's not there! LOL!

Two verses that have Satan asking permission. . . There are 66 books of the Bible. The conflict (battle, war) between God and Satan begins in Gen. 3:15 - And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel. Satan struck Jesus' heel and in so doing, is striking ours. It will end with Satan getting his head crushed.

The ONE verse I currently have? 1) the whole world lies in the control (power) of the evil one; 2) the god of this world blinds people to the gospel; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us for we are not ignorant of his devices (2 Cor. 2:11); Be sober, be vigilant because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8) . . . thought of a few more this morning - Put on the whole armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. (Eph. 6:11); In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one (Eph. 6:16); Resist the devil and he will flee from you (James 4:7b). Why all the exhortation, when God's going to "consent, permit, allow" it anyway? Now if we are fighting an enemy - we need encouragement when it comes to fighting the good fight, running the race . . . If God is "allowing" it in the first place - why do we need to fight and what are we fighting against - the enemy or God giving permission?

You are correct concerning Jesus - NOTHING would have stopped the crucifixion of Jesus - God said it would happen this way and it did. (Gen. 3:15) I also agree that if evil should happen to us that God will work in the situation and turn it for our good - You said: I don't believe God permits evil just so that He can turn it around for good. I believe if he permits any evil to touch us or Satan to sift us, that it is in order to grow our trust . . . or to bring great and eternal blessing and good to us and/or others." Yea, Satan went into the presence of God to ask permission to cause an accident so God said "okay" and "allowed, consented" to that drunk driver hitting another car and maiming the occupants so He could teach them a lesson, or build their faith . . .

We see a lot of this the same. And I think it's perfectly fine for you to just set aside Job and peter and satan asking permission if you can't deal with, bear or understand it. It's okay to go with the verses you have and do understand and not worry yourself about the ones you can't or aren't able to or haven't been given insight on or for whatever reason.

What I'm NOT okay with (and I haven't seen you do this) is anyone being bullied because they have understanding of harder things OR anyone being bullied because they DON'T yet have understanding of harder things.There has been some bullying. There have been some unkind remarks. They have come from both sets. Both sets. It's not okay. If one can't have a civil conversation, they should remove themselves until they get their tongue under control.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Fyi Stunned...

Paraphrasing or only using parts of a persons writing is not hearsay.

As well, words by someone who is entered his work in the public forum by writing a book, research article etc., should and can be critiqued on a public forum, just as our ideas on here can be critiqued, if this was not allowed the Universities and Colleges might as well pack up.

A dead person cannot claim any rights with regards to defamation or slander

While context is important it is perfectly acceptable to quote part of what some has said to support one's argument.

Certainly, the person using the quote has to ensure that the theme/idea of the quote is reflective and is indeed representative of the person's stance or beliefs and for that everyone has to do their own research rather than just call it lies

I personally am giving any nonsense a rest. Carry on.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Done with painting these wicker pieces to take to the shop, but now I have been invited to dinner, so I'll have to deal with this post piecemeal too, part now and part later, which doesn't mean I don't like your posts because I do! Actually I should say no to the dinner invite because since I quit smoking three weeks ago, I have gained the weight of at least a small calf, but I want to go so I don't have to worry about what to make myself for dinner! Probably more about me than you cared to hear!!

First paragraph- Think of it this way...what does it mean to be cast into the outer darkness? God doesn't "turn off Himself - He casts AWAY from Himself, sends AWAY from His presence, sends to a place He has prepared AWAY from Himself. So in doing this, He has created a place of darkness for someone. It's not a positive creation as in: let there be darkness. It is a negative creation of darkness by removing from His presence/light.

I hope you will be here later this evening because I'm learning and being blessed and enjoying our conversation! IMMENSELY!

When I mentioned "God is light" and you come back with turning a light on and off . . . I said that it wasn't that simple - God IS light. . . . That is one of God's attributes, characteristics - what He IS. It was to prove that there is NO darkness in Him AT ALL and "darkness" would have to be in Him in order to give Satan "permission" to do "darkness". . . . nothing to do with the demons asking permission to go into the pigs, nothing about "outer darkness. I don't see what the demons had to do with being in God's presence; they weren't in the light in the first place to have God turn them away from His presence.

I am sending you to them (Gentiles) to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God (Acts 26:18a) See the correlation: turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan (darkness) to God (light)​