Death and Dying, part deux

[Stunnedbygrace]

It's a very hard subject to grapple with, that's for sure. I appreciate those of you who have been calm during the grappling. And I appreciate that you care enough to want to understand it with no verses being discarded but with them fitting together properly.

I have to go but I'm already looking forward to coming back to see what God helps us arrive at and understand more fully.

 

[Depleted]

You explained your straw man of what Calvinism is. Brush up on it before twisting it.

That doesn't work with her. She gets a bone against "certain churches," then spends a long time "researching," only to find what she can hate about them, and then writes a high school thesis on it. It doesn't really matter if people in that church believe or don't believe what she says that particular church believes, because she works at making it sound like doctrine.

She does that for two churches -- the Catholic church and "Calvinist" Church. (Betcha didn't know we were the members of the same church. lol) And, because she writes it like a high school paper, people think she is well studied and an authority on these things. Fact checking is a lost art, apparently.

A little below Bible reading.

And, I'm serious there too. Ever notice her arguing never includes scripture. Always what some Dead Guy said, and often, quite long ago. It's Romney against Obama all over again. Surely, no one will trust Romney, because he was mean to someone in ninth grade! There is no room for growing, or understanding better. There isn't for her, so there isn't for anyone in the past.

I really don't have anything against Arminians/Wesleyans. I absolutely know I was born again while I was one, so our salvation isn't based on such doctrinal issues. (Not to be confused with, once someone starts studying the Bible, it is likely the doctrine will become closer and closer to reformed/Calvinish. lol) BUT, dollars for donuts, I do believe the ones who come here to argue "Calvinist bad" only aren't even born again.

Real Arminians/Wesleyans tend to do what we do with them. Heave a long sigh at the naivety of the other, but love and accept each other like what we are -- family.

 

[Magenta]

I literally don't understand what you have said here. It doesn't even seem like full sentences to me. I read it six times and still don't understand it. I tried very hard. I'm not being rude, I just don't understand what thought or idea you are trying to convey.

Everything was in full sentences except the very beginning where I gave the dictionary definition of decree as it applied to the discussion. I had suggested earlier that you look up those two words (decree and ordain), and since you finally used one in a post, but gave no indication of understanding its meaning, I provided the definitions of both words, and further explained, in proper English and grammar, which you now say you cannot comprehend. Yes, it is puzzling, that when the crux of the matter is put before you, which shows in plain English the problem of believing God to be the author of evil, somehow it eludes you completely, as if it makes no sense to you that such a belief should be abhorrent to any Bible believing Christian.

I think you may have what is called a mental block, for you have shown multiple times that you have a skewed bias against me, reading into what I say things that are not even there, assuming things from a faulty perspective, and then falsely accusing me as a result. I wonder what the issue really is. Nor is this a new thing on this site, or in similar discussions on other sites, where someone can say something and another turns what has been plainly and succinctly said into something so mangled it is beyond recognition. It seems to be one of many sad facts of life

 

[Depleted]

Men do wicked deeds due to them possessing wicked hearts. God doesn’t have to make them do it, it comes from them naturally, due to their possessing wicked hearts.

Please, do not speak for me EVER again.

I am sure glad you’re not my lawyer. I’d get hung for sure.

Just stay out of Delaware, New Hampshire, and Washington, and you're golden. (The only states left that even allow hanging. lol)

 

[Magenta]

What I can't grasp is why God having a plan fully in place for what He knew was going to happen, means to someone that He caused the bad thing to happen...

It seems some cannot accept that God is sovereign and omnipotent unless He is controlling everything like a puppet master.

 

[Magenta]

It's a very hard subject to grapple with, that's for sure. I appreciate those of you who have been calm during the grappling. And I appreciate that you care enough to want to understand it with no verses being discarded but with them fitting together properly.

I have to go but I'm already looking forward to coming back to see what God helps us arrive at and understand more fully.

Okay, I read things like this you say and cannot help but wonder if you wish to implicate me in your statements. Could you please clarify for me? Because I have been calm, though you have misread me more than once, and I do not appreciate being maligned, and saying so does not mean I am not calm. It means I am aware and wish to understand your meaning.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Everything was in full sentences except the very beginning where I gave the dictionary definition of decree as it applied to the discussion. I had suggested earlier that you look up those two words (decree and ordain), and since you finally used one in a post, but gave no indication of understanding its meaning, I provided the definitions of both words, and further explained, in proper English and grammar, which you now say you cannot comprehend. Yes, it is puzzling, that when the crux of the matter is put before you, which shows in plain English the problem of believing God to be the author of evil, somehow it eludes you completely, as if it makes no sense to you that such a belief should be abhorrent to any Bible believing Christian.

I think you may have what is called a mental block, for you have shown multiple times that you have a skewed bias against me, reading into what I say things that are not even there, assuming things from a faulty perspective, and then falsely accusing me as a result. I wonder what the issue really is. Nor is this a new thing on this site, or in similar discussions on other sites, where someone can say something and another turns what has been plainly and succinctly said into something so mangled it is beyond recognition. It seems to be one of many sad facts of life

Pretty certain the words decree and ordain have never been uttered from my own mouth and that I have never in my life used them in a sentence. Can't say for sure that I haven't posted something someone else said that used the words though...but I'd be more likely to say...proclaim, declare, state or forespeak.

As for falsely accusing you of something, you will have to point out what I've falsely accused you of because I don't know where I've done it.

 

[Depleted]

I should probably read what has been posted overnight before I post the thought I awoke with but...I don't want to forget to do it. First, I'm quite okay with finding that I agree with a lot of what a certain man has to say, but not all of it. I don't malign any man just because we think differently on some points. (Unless the man says tea is better than coffee, or cats are better than dogs, which makes it blatantly obvious that he has no idea what he's talking about.)

Since I can't find the complete writing, chapter or few pages that this quote is from, and since no one can point me to it and, in fact, only could quote the last seven words of the full sentence, I can only guess at his full intent, which to me appears to be like saying: The world is subject to God, runs and is governed by, the rules He put in place and subjected His creation to. And when satan and the men of the world do all the evil and attempted hindering they can think to do, God still works it all to His good pleasure and will and that pleasure and will is what wins out, because He works all things for the good of those who love and are called by Him - even all the evil intentions and schemes of the world.

I'd give room for someone who thinks tea is better than coffee. After all, tea and coffee are both hot drinks, hot drinks never refresh nor do hot drinks quench my thirst. (I get thirstier and thirstier waiting around for the hot drink to cool off.) So, okay. You can like one over the other. Just don't bring cold drinks into the argument.

And, I'd give room for both cat lovers and dog lovers, because they aren't mentioning the no-muss-no-fuss pet to love -- stuffed animals. So, okay, they can argue over the less-than-perfect animals all they want.

As for full book the quote came from? Here you go. It's a commentary written by Calvin, but not published for another 400+ years. (And it misses a lot since it's the last sentence in a longer description of a few verses in the middle of the book of...) Acts

 

[Magenta]

Pretty certain the words decree and ordain have never been uttered from my own mouth and that I have never in my life used them in a sentence. Can't say for sure that I haven't posted something someone else said that used the words though...but I'd be more likely to say...proclaim, declare, state or forespeak.

As for falsely accusing you of something, you will have to point out what I've falsely accused you of because I don't know where I've done it.

You used it here, and in quite large font. I will underline I so you can see it better.

Okay, it didn't work and I didn't find the quote where someone cited it as from, but I did only skim the commentary...

I have the whole sentence:

“We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.”

But it doesn't give me the mans total thought and intent. I may think of some other way to find where the quote is from but I can't come up with anything right now...​

The weird edit cannot be helped... that was all one post of yours.

​

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Okay, I read things like this you say and cannot help but wonder if you wish to implicate me in your statements. Could you please clarify for me? Because I have been calm, though you have misread me more than once, and I do not appreciate being maligned, and saying so does not mean I am not calm. It means I am aware and wish to understand your meaning.

I wish you could approach me without thinking I am trying to harm you in some way. Why do you think I am after you or wish to speak poorly of you? I thought that whatever odd burp we experienced together had been forgotten and that you were as relieved as I was that it was done with. Why does my saying I appreciate calm discussion make you think I am saying something bad about you...?? Why are you so suspicious that I am out to harm you? I'm telling the truth sister - I LOVE you.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

You used it here, and in quite large font. I will underline I so you can see it better.

The weird edit cannot be helped... that was all one post of yours.

​

Okay, it was another man I quoted who used the word. That clears up my confusion.
I took the man to be saying that whatever evil imagines, plans, plots or thinks to do, or does do, to try to hinder Gods' good will, in the end, it is Gods' will that will be done and accomplished.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Hi PB! I was hoping you would return today!

I understand that your problem is with God giving permission for evil to touch His people and to sift them like wheat. I've got your mind in it, I think. You don't have a problem with the idea that evil may touch you or bring about your death. Your problem is in others thinking that God permits it rather than that God has no control over whether it does or doesn't touch them.

As to the Isaiah verse, I replied to someone that my translation says " darkness", not "evil." I don't think the translation that uses "I create evil" is good. I gave my own translation because I think evil would be better rendered as: cursing, calamity or darkness. And my translation (in my opinion) does not say that God creates evil but that He creates darkness - by turning His face from or by casting from, His presence. So I understand your question, but you have not understood that I do not equate the word darkness with the word evil, although I could say it would be an evil or woeful thing to have God turn His face from you and cast you into darkness! In other words, I do not think God creates, or is the author of, evil. And I have shown, by Calvins own words, that neither does he!

I also used the translation that used the word "darkness", not my own but the NIV translation. Darkness to me relates and corresponds with evil because darkness is the absence of light. (John 3:19,20; John 12:35,46) So, I ask again - How can God create darkness (the absence of light) when there is NO darkness in him AT ALL?

"that all things are subject to God, and ruled by his will" . . . that was true in the beginning - until Satan tried to usurp the throne of God with his "I wills" and rebelled and was cast out of heaven. And if all things are ruled by God's will then it is God's will that evil comes upon us . . . there we have God working with evil, i.e. darkness, the absence of light.

I like your post. I have a problem with your 4th paragraph where you say, does satan have to get Gods permission to do anything in this world? I had to think really hard about this! You give a verse that satan is the god of this world and so you come to the conclusion that he doesn't need to ask permission to touch one of Gods children. But then, I need for the other verses that are in tension to that to be worked into the equation, because we see satan asking permission in Job and we also have Jesus saying: Peter, satan has asked permission to sift you like wheat.

Since Satan was cast out of heaven . . . and since God cannot be in the presence of sin (so I have heard said - can't ever find that verse), of which Satan is the epitome of sin . . . would Satan be allowed before God? Or are the first two chapters of Job told in an allegorical style and the moral being taught through his trials and tribulations is "that it rains on the just as well as the unjust"? (Matt. 5:45) Which is of course what Job's miserable comforters believed - that Job had done something terrible and that God was punishing him . . . just the opposite, for Job was a righteous man. Satan asked to sift (fig. by inward agitation to try one's faith to the verge of overthrow) all of you as wheat and in that sense Satan desires to ruin everyone's life to the point they begin to lose faith. What was going to cause inward agitation to the point where Peter would begin to lose faith - Peter denying the Lord before the cock crowed - Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times. And he went outside and wept bitterly. Can you imagine how much his faith took a hit at that point?

So when you seem to be stating that satan can do whatever evil or sifting or trying he desires to any of us who have been bought by Jesus, without any permission whatsoever, you are not fitting the verses together but are discarding two of them to favor another one of them. Maybe it has something to do with "the whole world lies under the power of the wicked one" but we are no longer of this world, although still in it...Maybe after we belong to God, then satan DOES have to ask permission to touch us. He certainly asked permission in an instance in the OT and another in the NT. And in the OT instance, He didn't give any sort of carte blanche permission, but gave limits.

It all has to fit together or we have missed something. I think you agree with that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Two times the word records Satan asking "permission" - so we take those two times and run with it. The whole world lies in the power of the evil one (ESV); the whole world is under the control of the evil one (NIV); 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) - Why watch, why are we not to be ignorant? God's up there giving him permission ??????

Correct we are not to be a part of this world, i.e. conformed to this world but we live in it . . . the world, this age that we live in - is under CONTROL, IN THE POWER of the evil one - the only way to separate ourselves from this environment and not be touched by evil/darkness is when we leave this world. It rains on the just and the unjust!

"It all has to fit together or we have missed something." . . . Yes

In your last paragraph you equate God allowing or giving permission for sifting with God DOING the evil. You say does God do (allow) evil to happen to people...but when He allowed satan to sift Job, it ended with Job saying, oh my gosh, before I had only heard about God but now I have seen Him for myself! Is that an evil result? And by allowing men to torture and murder Jesus, you have the greatest gift and mercy. Is that an evil result?

Your last paragraph is chock full of good questions for me to struggle with and ask God about!

I said - Does God do (allow) evil to happen to people just so he can turn it around for good? That would be "doing evil so that good may result". (Romans 3:8) Or does he take the evil perpetrated by the adversary (either directly, through men or just the state of the world) and turn it for good?

I believe the latter . . . Man, Paul must have had a really harder time of it in Romans 7 than I first thought - on one side God allowing Satan to get Paul to do the things he doesn't want to do then on the other God is wanting him to do the things he wants to do . . . Whew!!!!

 

[Magenta]

I wish you could approach me without thinking I am trying to harm you in some way. Why do you think I am after you or wish to speak poorly of you? I thought that whatever odd burp we experienced together had been forgotten and that you were as relieved as I was that it was done with. Why does my saying I appreciate calm discussion make you think I am saying something bad about you...?? Why are you so suspicious that I am out to harm you? I'm telling the truth sister - I LOVE you.

Hmmm, well, you have misread me more than once, and someone expressing their opinion cannot always be construed as a desire to hurt another, so my saying I wonder if you include me in that does not mean I think you are trying to hurt me, but that there has been a problem with communication to the point where plain simple statements are not comprehended in the least, and intentions misread. I have not seen you talking with very many people on this thread, and since I am one of the few you have been talking to, why else would you say it if not to indicate that you believe someone has been upset during the grappling, when you believe you have offended me? Yes, this level of analysis is uncomfortable. The attention to detail of fitting jigsaw puzzle pieces into the larger picture... I wondered if you would rather not communicate with me. If that were the case, I would want to know, even though it would sadden me.

 

[Depleted]

Like I said he states both and was contradictory and therein is the problem.

If you really want to understand Calvin I suggest you read Augustine first since that is who Calvin read.

Something like saying I am contradictory because I don't like tea or coffee. Try reading it for what it says, instead of reading it to prove something against Calvin.

And, if you want to understand Calvin, how about reading Calvin?

The Beatles were influenced by Kansas City Blues, but I'm not listening to them to enjoy Kansas City Blues. Eric Clapton was influenced by Sonny Terry and Brownie McGee, but I double-dog-dare you to get that out of all of Eric's music.

Either you like someone or you don't, but it's rarely based on who influenced that person.

And, frankly, if you guys would kindly give up the notion that Reformed is Calvin! I have yet to read more than two sentences in a row from Calvin. (I skimmed what Stunned gave specifically because the text is so small and slanted, it was too hard to read.) The guy talks beyond my capability to understand. And to think that's who we all worship is as silly a concept as Eric Clapton is Brownie McGhee!

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

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I'd give room for someone who thinks tea is better than coffee. After all, tea and coffee are both hot drinks, hot drinks never refresh nor do hot drinks quench my thirst. (I get thirstier and thirstier waiting around for the hot drink to cool off.) So, okay. You can like one over the other. Just don't bring cold drinks into the argument.

And, I'd give room for both cat lovers and dog lovers, because they aren't mentioning the no-muss-no-fuss pet to love -- stuffed animals. So, okay, they can argue over the less-than-perfect animals all they want.

As for full book the quote came from? Here you go. It's a commentary written by Calvin, but not published for another 400+ years. (And it misses a lot since it's the last sentence in a longer description of a few verses in the middle of the book of...) Acts

Yeah, I already found and posted it. I have been thinking you might like the website I listed because you can search Calvins writings by phase, word or topic at the site!

It wasn't even the last sentence that was given by magenta in her post (which I went back and read after we cleared up our burp), but it was a portion of the last sentence, which I don't like to go by when trying to ascertain what a man thinks. I think that at the very least, his full sentence should be given, so no one can twist his intent, even if they don't purposely twist it!

If I'm going to strenuously oppose what a man has said, I'm going to darn sure first read what the man has said for myself and not accept someone elses explanation of what he has said! (And that is because I personally have erred very badly in the past by accepting hearsay instead of allowing a man to speak for himself and taking the time to read his thoughts. I do not ever again want to do that harm to a man, and certainly not to a dead one)So I searched it out for myself and even posted another quote that showed him saying : GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF EVIL. He even called it a ridiculous conclusion to make if I'm remembering correctly. Anyway, I posted it. Others are saying he also has said the exact opposite but they have not been able to provide a quote so I'm wondering if they're going by the word of another man on it rather than having searched out if it is true he said it...maybe someone will find the quote he is rumored to have have said.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Something like saying I am contradictory because I don't like tea or coffee. Try reading it for what it says, instead of reading it to prove something against Calvin.

And, if you want to understand Calvin, how about reading Calvin?

The Beatles were influenced by Kansas City Blues, but I'm not listening to them to enjoy Kansas City Blues. Eric Clapton was influenced by Sonny Terry and Brownie McGee, but I double-dog-dare you to get that out of all of Eric's music.

Either you like someone or you don't, but it's rarely based on who influenced that person.

And, frankly, if you guys would kindly give up the notion that Reformed is Calvin! I have yet to read more than two sentences in a row from Calvin. (I skimmed what Stunned gave specifically because the text is so small and slanted, it was too hard to read.) The guy talks beyond my capability to understand. And to think that's who we all worship is as silly a concept as Eric Clapton is Brownie McGhee!

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

Yes, calvin is very difficult to read. It's older English and very...proper, but it is worth the effort in my opinion. I've got a lot of reading to do because I have found that I like what he has to say on many things. I will probably paraphrase him if I bring any more quotes, because he is worth hearing, I think.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Hmmm, well, you have misread me more than once, and someone expressing their opinion cannot always be construed as a desire to hurt another, so my saying I wonder if you include me in that does not mean I think you are trying to hurt me, but that there has been a problem with communication to the point where plain simple statements are not comprehended in the least, and intentions misread. I have not seen you talking with very many people on this thread, and since I am one of the few you have been talking to, why else would you say it if not to indicate that you believe someone has been upset during the grappling, when you believe you have offended me? Yes, this level of analysis is uncomfortable. The attention to detail of fitting jigsaw puzzle pieces into the larger picture... I wondered if you would rather not communicate with me. If that were the case, I would want to know, even though it would sadden me.

I'm still not understanding where I have falsely accused you of anything. Yes, I know we had a misunderstanding where I misread you once and thought you were saying that I stated that God is the author of evil. I believed we cleared that up and I went and read the post that I didn't at first read past the first sentence.

Past that, I still do not understand where I misread you more than that once and I mostly do not have any idea where I falsely accused you of anything since you said I did but would not answer me as to what I falsely accused you of so I could apologize.

All I can do is hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt and accept as me telling the truth when I say that by my thanking anyone else for their willingness to discuss this difficult matter calmly with me, I was NOT making some attack on you. I was really and truly addressing that post to PB and UG, as I have appreciated and enjoyed these two sisters in this conversation.

 

[Magenta]

You explained your straw man of what Calvinism is. Brush up on it before twisting it.

Since the Calvinist view embraces and promotes a fatalistic predestination, with nothing happening except it be predetermined and foreordained by God, how could anyone who believed that say then that Adam and Eve had any choice in the matter as to whether to obey God, or not? The narrative of Genesis gives no indication that Adam and Eve’s choices were decided for them before they were created, despite God knowing the choice they would make, and working all things to the good for those who love Him and were called according to His purpose.

God desires that all repent and come to a knowledge of the truth, but some people who call themselves Christians, those of a Calvinistic disposition, scoff at that and call God "weak" if He does not get what He wants. So then what happens? Then some of those same people say things like, God does not mean all people when Scripture says all, and when Scriptures say Jesus died for the sins of the whole world they will say it does not mean the whole world, because that would mean that everyone is forgiven, as if repentance were not a requirement for salvation. You have said those underlined things.

God desires none to perish.

God desires none to perish. That some will, does not make Him weak, nor does it mean He is not sovereign, nor does it mean He is not omnipotent. Certain Calvinists will mock the idea of God not being in complete control of all things, and then wonder why anyone thinks that means He is the author of evil, when they come right out and say such things.
​

​

 

[Depleted]

What I can't grasp is why God having a plan fully in place for what He knew was going to happen, means to someone that He caused the bad thing to happen...

My dad has always been OCD... at least for my whole life. So, when he said we were going to our grandparents for Christmas, we were going, no matter what.

Two sets of grandparents. One lived in Syracuse, NY -- the snow capital of the US. (They average 200 inches of snow in winter. Might not be the real worst the US gets, but it's in the race for the title. lol) And the other (just grandmother by then), was in Charlottesville, VA, which is in a valley in the Blue Ridge Mountains. That valley seems to capture snow clouds, and let them drop all the snow in them.

So, Dad prepared for the trip. Got the spare tire, jack, 25 pound bag of salt, shovel, snacks, and a thermos, (none of which was allowed to be used, unless it became an emergency), along with our suitcases, and Christmas presents. The Weatherman clued us in on what was going to happen, so it wasn't like he started not knowing the destination was in a blizzard or about to be hit by one. We knew, even if we didn't know exactly how it would affect us. And, boy! There were times even I wish he hadn't made that choice. I remember a five-hour drive taking 14 hours. I know what the D.C. Beltway looks like when you literally could not see the road. The only difference between the road and not-the-road was the road was like a dike you can drive over above two halves of frozen, deep snowed lake. It was merely higher than not-a-road on either side of it.

It took us ten hours to get two miles from Gram's house. BUT there was one more road, the road had a hill, and the entire hill was covered with cars and trucks that tried to go up it but got stuck instead. (It looked like a 24-vehicle-pileup, except not a single vehicle was touching another vehicle...well maybe a back bumper ended up leaning against the side of another vehicle in a ditch, but both vehicles got in that position at separate times. Ditch-vehicle first, then other vehicle hitting it after a long slide backwards into it.) Thankfully, my uncle knew the back route for getting us there. It was usually an extra hour of driving to take that route, but blizzard, so it took him two hours to reach us, (thankfully, there was a grocery store we could wait at, so bathroom and food lol), and two hours to follow him back.

If humans can prepare for emergencies with the information we have, why do we think God can't prepare for everything given he's God, made it all, including time and space, and ordained his plan for it?

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

It seems some cannot accept that God is sovereign and omnipotent unless He is controlling everything like a puppet master.

That really didn't address my post...I said I didn't understand why God having had a full plan in place for what He knew was going to happen, meant to some that He CAUSED the bad thing to happen. I've been made weary by how we cannot seem to understand what the other is saying. I don't see God having had His full plan to save me already planned from the foundation of the world as Him being a puppetmaster. I see it as Him being one I can fully trust! Let's just take a break and try to talk again later when we're fresh.