My daughter came into town yesterday.

[James Banta]

This makes the second time I have seen her in 5 years.. We had a great visit.. One thing we talked about was sin.. That before a Holy God Sin is Sin.. Whether it be murder, adultery, or lying, Sin is Sin and will all have the same result, spiritual death in the Lake of Fire.. My son in law a man new to the Church had the same thinking on the subject as I have seem here from the LDS and those that comfort the LDS in their error.. That there are levels of sin.. My daughter and I agreed that there is that one penalty for sin and it makes no difference what the sin is, it is all rebellion against God.. IHS jim

[Snow Patrol]

My daughter and I agreed that there is that one penalty for sin and it makes no difference what the sin is, it is all rebellion against God.. IHS jim


Maybe you could explain a couple of things.

1. Is it rebellion against God if you aren't the one doing the sin? From other posts, I've gathered that you believe that SIN is the cause of sin, whatever that means. I still don't understand that.

2. Where does a Christian's responsibility lie in knocking sin out of their lives? I've also gathered that it sure seems that a Christian is not responsible for the sin that remains in their life. Is this correct?

[RealFakeHair]

Maybe you could explain a couple of things.

1. Is it rebellion against God if you aren't the one doing the sin? From other posts, I've gathered that you believe that SIN is the cause of sin, whatever that means. I still don't understand that.

2. Where does a Christian's responsibility lie in knocking sin out of their lives? I've also gathered that it sure seems that a Christian is not responsible for the sin that remains in their life. Is this correct?

Christians, do not knock out any sin. The flesh just wont let us. Only with the help of the Holy Ghost of the Holy Bible can a christian fight against the evil of Satan, Joseph Smith, or Jim Jones, or Obama.

[James Banta]

Maybe you could explain a couple of things.

1. Is it rebellion against God if you aren't the one doing the sin? From other posts, I've gathered that you believe that SIN is the cause of sin, whatever that means. I still don't understand that.

2. Where does a Christian's responsibility lie in knocking sin out of their lives? I've also gathered that it sure seems that a Christian is not responsible for the sin that remains in their life. Is this correct?

Do you often have this much trouble understanding the scripture? The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul tells us that:


Romans 7:17-20
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.


You can say you don't understand this teaching from now until judgment day, and therefore say that is isn't the truth.. But that doesn't change the FACT that the scripture teaches that it is no longer jim that sins "but sin that dwelleth in" jim that does it..

It is the Christians duty to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in HIS *** of sanctifying the Church.. The word of God tells us who's responsibility it is to carry out that ***..



1. John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
2. Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
3. 1 Thes 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly...
4. Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.


By the Bible I would say that our sanctification is accomplished by God, by His death on the cross or though His word preserved for us in the Bible..What is left for us to do? Only to cooperate with Him through Faith..IHS jim

[Libby]

Do you really believe that you are no longer responsible for your sins, James? That, it is not "you" who sins, but some THING that sins against your will?

If that's true, you are no longer responsible for your sins and have no need of Jesus.

[alanmolstad]

Do you really believe that you are no longer responsible for your sins, James? That, it is not "you" who sins, but some THING that sins against your will?
.remember the words of Paul?......he addressed your question

[Apologette]

Maybe you could explain a couple of things.

1. Is it rebellion against God if you aren't the one doing the sin? From other posts, I've gathered that you believe that SIN is the cause of sin, whatever that means. I still don't understand that.

2. Where does a Christian's responsibility lie in knocking sin out of their lives? I've also gathered that it sure seems that a Christian is not responsible for the sin that remains in their life. Is this correct? Look, one little sin can separate you eternally from God. You can never earn salvation, or get your sins rescinded because you serve the Mormon cult. You are lost and as hell-bound as any murderous crook if you aren't covered by Christ's Blood - I don't care how many good works you think you've done.

[James Banta]

Do you really believe that you are no longer responsible for your sins, James? That, it is not "you" who sins, but some THING that sins against your will?

If that's true, you are no longer responsible for your sins and have no need of Jesus.

Libby I have explained how I came to that place in my spiritual life where this is true.. Jesus became sin in my place and made me the righteousness by His efforts. How in the world could I have done that without Jesus? Sin still has a price.. Jesus paid it for me..

What I see here is a woman that wants the gospel to be of her own invention without any connection to the scripture.. Only what you think and feel is right and not what God has clearly told us in His word what is right.. Yes these doctrines I teach have a strong connection to salvation by grace through faith and NOT OF WORKS. They also connect strongly to once saved always saved.. Doctrine that neither you or the LDS seem to be able to comprehend.

I have not once here said that these things are "According to what I believe". This thing are written in the Bible as the Holy Spirit cause holy men to record them as He moved them.. If you don't understand these doctrines, If you can't accept them that is your problem showing a decided lack of trust in the messages God gave to us to help us open our hearts and minds to Him and His ways.. I will pray for you that you find a way to place your faith in Him and His promises.. IHS jim

[Libby]

remember the words of Paul?......he addressed your question

I don't have a question, Alan. I'm very familiar with the Bible. Just think James is not explaining it well. He's too busy being hyper-condescending (as usual). But, that's okay, he's "forgiven".

[James Banta]

I don't have a question, Alan. I'm very familiar with the Bible. Just think James is not explaining it well. He's too busy being hyper-condescending (as usual). But, that's okay, he's "forgiven".

You are still inventing your own "gospel" that will somehow holds that Jesus paid the full penalty for all sin while you can still hold the sinner responsible. And if I quote the scripture that tells us that Jesus became sin in the place of all who believe and He has given all those His righteousness, you call it confusing, hard to understand? If it is so, why can't you just believe Him and accept it?

Yes Libby I am forgiven.. I was helplessly lost in sin and I called on Jesus and He kept His word and saved me, cleansing me from all my sin.. All, not just what I had done up to that time, but all of it.. It was a mighty pile of filth but He dealt with it.. It is all gone because of HIM.. In my posts to you I gave mostly scripture.. You have yet to confirm agreement to that sacred message.. But I have seen what you have said in the past about the Bible.. You doubts that it is all God's word.. Your doubts that it was divinely inspired, your doubts that Jesus (God) is capable of seeing to it that His word, the message He wants mankind to have, is the same today as the day His apostles and prophets first recorded it.. I am sorry for that.. I will pray for you.. IHS jim

[Libby]

you call it confusing, hard to understand?

Nope, never said that. I wish you would read more carefully, James.

I said, there are many different interpretations of the Bible (and, there are). I didn't say that I, personally, found it difficult to understand...nor am I "confused". Not at all.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. My hope and salvation is in him. Always has been, always will be.

You can pray for me, if you like, but if you're praying for my "salvation"..that is done.

I'll pray for you, as well. For better understanding. ;-)

[James Banta]

Nope, never said that. I wish you would read more carefully, James.

I said, there are many different interpretations of the Bible (and, there are). I didn't say that I, personally, found it difficult to understand...nor am I "confused". Not at all.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. My hope and salvation is in him. Always has been, always will be.

You can pray for me, if you like, but if you're praying for my "salvation"..that is done.

I'll pray for you, as well. For better understanding. ;-)

I don't believe that you are lying here. I count it to a poor memory.. You have said that there are parts of the OT mostly that deal with the history of Israel that aren't God's word.. I guess you have forgotten that post from a few years ago.. Yes I have prayed for your understanding. I have placed you in the hand of the mighty God, the everlasting Father (Jesus), to deal with your salvation.. I have real doubts but God be the judge.. IHS jim

[Libby]

I don't believe that you are lying here. I count it to a poor memory.. You have said that there are parts of the OT mostly that deal with the history of Israel that aren't God's word.. I guess you have forgotten that post from a few years ago.. Yes I have prayed for your understanding. I have placed you in the hand of the mighty God, the everlasting Father (Jesus), to deal with your salvation.. I have real doubts but God be the judge.. IHS jim

I guess you have forgotten that salvation is in Jesus Christ...not, in one's interpretation of the Old Testament.

My understanding of the O.T. is "in progress"....I do not have a perfect understanding. My understanding is not perfect, but one thing I know for certain, is that my salvation is in Jesus Christ. Everything else is an ongoing work in progress.

I appreciate that you allow God to be the judge. I'm sure he appreciates it, as well. :) (just teasing - so don't go off all serious on me! )

[alanmolstad]

I guess you have forgotten that salvation is in Jesus Christ...not, in one's interpretation of the Old Testament.


you really think he has forgotten that eh?....

[Libby]

you really think he has forgotten that eh?....

Seems he did (temporarily, at least) if he's asking about my "interpretations" (some time ago) of the O.T.

[James Banta]

[Libby;154706]I guess you have forgotten that salvation is in Jesus Christ...not, in one's interpretation of the Old Testament.

It wasn't me that interpreted the OT as mostly a history of Israel that wasn't inspired.. That was you.. In this exchange I have made NO interpretation at all.. Mostly I don't interpret any scripture at all I allow the Holy Spirit to do that ***..


My understanding of the O.T. is "in progress"....I do not have a perfect understanding. My understanding is not perfect, but one thing I know for certain, is that my salvation is in Jesus Christ. Everything else is an ongoing work in progress.

The OT and the New are about Jesus 100%. We have His word on it..


John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.


Jesus is the subject of the whole Bible.. It is NOT "in progress", or "on going".. IT IS FINISHED.. If you are so Christian it is time to stand up for truth and question and show that error is not of God. If you don't find questioning someone else religion you really don't have to post here, But to those of us willing to call a viper a viper, a hypocrite a hypocrite, and a child of the devil a child of the devil we will go on showing the true Way, Truth, and Life.. We don't need someone to be in agreement with such against those that should be your brothers and sisters in Christ.. If you want to stay and learn more about who God is and what He has done you will be welcomed by me to do so. If you try to show me how holy the LDS beliefs such as works salvation, and polytheistic Gods are you may as will leave.. Such pandering to error is not welcome with me.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Again, James, you completely misconstrued what I said...and, as usual, went off on a condescending rant.

Where did I say anything about YOUR interpretation of the O.T.? No where.

And, perhaps, you think YOU have it all figured out, but some of us may still be open to learning. Patience sure doesn't seem to be one of your strong suits.

[RealFakeHair]

Again, James, you completely misconstrued what I said...and, as usual, went off on a condescending rant.

Where did I say anything about YOUR interpretation of the O.T.? No where.

And, perhaps, you think YOU have it all figured out, but some of us may still be open to learning. Patience sure doesn't seem to be one of your strong suits.

I have it all figured out, but sometimes I forget where I put it.

[theway]

This makes the second time I have seen her in 5 years.. We had a great visit.. One thing we talked about was sin.. That before a Holy God Sin is Sin.. Whether it be murder, adultery, or lying, Sin is Sin and will all have the same result, spiritual death in the Lake of Fire.. My son in law a man new to the Church had the same thinking on the subject as I have seem here from the LDS and those that comfort the LDS in their error.. That there are levels of sin.. My daughter and I agreed that there is that one penalty for sin and it makes no difference what the sin is, it is all rebellion against God.. IHS jim

Maybe you need to read your Bible, it clearly states that there are degrees of sin. There is even one sin so bad it is unforgivable (in this life OR THE NEXT)

[James Banta]

[Libby;154718]Again, James, you completely misconstrued what I said...and, as usual, went off on a condescending rant.

Where did I say anything about YOUR interpretation of the O.T.? No where.

You said "My understanding of the O.T. is "in progress"".. I found that to say that your understanding is superior to mine.. After all yours is "In Progress" while I made it clear that mine is based in the Person of Jesus.. Sounded that way to me.. I still affirm that the OT, the entire Bible is all about Jesus.. Like we live and have our being for Him, not for us.. That is what I mean that you seem to have a lot to learn.. All things are about God, this world and everything in it are about Him.. If you read the OT with that in mind it will mean more to you..


And, perhaps, you think YOU have it all figured out, but some of us may still be open to learning. Patience sure doesn't seem to be one of your strong suits.

I will NEVER fully understand God.. There will always be so something that we can learn about Him.. He is infinite we will always be finite.. I do know that there is ONE GOD, and that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. I know that in Him all fullness exists.. I have faith in His word to us. That He will never change, that He is the only example of a LOVE that is eternal.. That because of this Love He put on humanity lived among us, gave us His guidance, then to make us righteous gave up His life on a cruel Roman cross, shedding His blood so that those who would believe Him are made clean and imputed with His righteousness.. You seem to doubt these things and side with unbelievers as to even His power to keep His message pure for us so that we can have His words like men of old did.. You prove that you are not a disciple of Jesus by loving the lost more than you love other believers..

Alan and I don't see eye to eye on many doctrines but Alan loves the Lord His God and look to no other for his salvation.. He received his righteousness the same way I received mine and neither of us had one thing to do with it.. We agree on these matters. He doesn't question me thinking that I am silly for saying I am perfect in the righteousness Jesus gave me. While I don't believe you have to conform to everything I say here you are required to conform to the meaning of God's word.. That meaning is normally very clear.. Jesus said that we must be Born Again, born spiritually from above. That whosoever believes in Him will not die but have eternal life.. There doesn't seem to be questionable.. What else could it mean other than what it says? IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Maybe you need to read your Bible, it clearly states that there are degrees of sin. There is even one sin so bad it is unforgivable (in this life OR THE NEXT)

How would you know, you don't even trust the Holy Bible, but you are correct in the fact mormons live in a unforgivable sin for putting their trust in Joseph Smith jr. imaginary mind mormon god.

[theway]

How would you know, you don't even trust the Holy Bible,total AntiMormon rubbish.... Has this really worked on anyone?


but you are correct in the fact mormons live in a unforgivable sin for putting their trust in Joseph Smith jr. imaginary mind mormon god.Thank you for agreeing with me that there are degrees if sin.... Although I don't get how that helps yours or James' case any???

[Libby]

I have it all figured out, but sometimes I forget where I put it.

Well, that may be my problem. I have become more forgetful as I age. I'm sure I did have it all figured out, at some point. ;-)

[Libby]

You said "My understanding of the O.T. is "in progress"".. I found that to say that your understanding is superior to mine..

James, if "my" understanding of the O.T. is "in progress" (which means, I do not understand it, in total), how in the world could that mean it was superior to yours or anyone's??? Unless, of course, you are at that stage, as well (which I certainly didn't claim)....and, you sure don't act like you have anything to learn. The problem I have with you is that you don't really bear testimony of Christ. You bear testimony of being a "know it all". Sorry, but that's how you come across. You act like you, not only know everything, but what you know makes you better than everyone else. You are arrogant and extremely condescending.

When I come across people like that (and Christianity is full of them) I usually end up thinking they really know nothing. People who are humble and really know Christ, are patient, kind and forgiving. At least, that's what I've read in the Bible (and experienced from true Christians).

[alanmolstad]

Libby....you might want to overlook things that upset you....

(Im just saying, that its one thing to be talking about different ideas and teachings...its another to catch yourself talking about only the other person personally.)

[James Banta]

James, if "my" understanding of the O.T. is "in progress" (which means, I do not understand it, in total), how in the world could that mean it was superior to yours or anyone's??? Unless, of course, you are at that stage, as well (which I certainly didn't claim)....and, you sure don't act like you have anything to learn. The problem I have with you is that you don't really bear testimony of Christ. You bear testimony of being a "know it all". Sorry, but that's how you come across. You act like you, not only know everything, but what you know makes you better than everyone else. You are arrogant and extremely condescending.

When I come across people like that (and Christianity is full of them) I usually end up thinking they really know nothing. People who are humble and really know Christ, are patient, kind and forgiving. At least, that's what I've read in the Bible (and experienced from true Christians).

You win... I know it all.. Now that you have won you can go away.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Libby....you might want to overlook things that upset you....

(Im just saying, that its one thing to be talking about different ideas and teachings...its another to catch yourself talking about only the other person personally.)

Alan, why don't you say that to James? He is the one who ALWAYS makes the conversation personal. Believe me, I am not the kind of person who normally does that, but James really needs to hear how he comes across, especially, if he's going to try and p*** himself off as some kind of "teacher". He is extremely offensive.

You can check this forum and see that I would much rather address issues and have done so, numerous times. I have started many threads and most all of my posts are on topic. I don't LIKE to get personal with anyone, but James has a very long history of saying rude and condescending things to me as well as to others.. and I won't put up with it anymore. If he wants to play that game, I will play it.

Notice, he doesn't like it much when he gets some of his own behavior thrown back at him.

[alanmolstad]

Alan, why don't you say that to James? .

Because I ran into this post of yours that is really a clear sign .........


"The problem I have with you is that you don't really bear testimony of Christ.
You bear testimony of being a "know it all"....
You act like you, not only know everything, but what you know makes you better than everyone else.
You are arrogant and extremely condescending."

(and pointing to the other guy and saying, "He started it"?....that's what you are going with?)


I like to talk about topics, about teachings, about ideas..about religions, and salvation, and the Bible, and ways to do things...

I also suggest the use of the IGNORE setting if a person does not like the manners of others, as well as reporting the situation to the owner Jill.

[Libby]

Because I ran into this post of yours that is really a clear sign .........


"The problem I have with you is that you don't really bear testimony of Christ.
You bear testimony of being a "know it all"....
You act like you, not only know everything, but what you know makes you better than everyone else.
You are arrogant and extremely condescending."

(and pointing to the other guy and saying, "He started it"?....that's what you are going with?)


I like to talk about topics, about teachings, about ideas..about religions, and salvation, and the Bible, and ways to do things...

I also suggest the use of the IGNORE setting if a person does not like the manners of others, as well as reporting the situation to the owner Jill.

And, I would suggest, to you, that it would be wiser to address the person who, not only started it (years ago), but continues it, everytime I come to this forum (which is not often, anymore). Otherwise, it appears that you are playing favorites or trying to protect your "Christian" friends.

I also enjoy talking about religion, Jesus and his teachings and all other things spiritual...especially with people who know how to have a civil discussion and who do not always take it to a personal level.

[alanmolstad]

And, I would suggest, to you, that it would be wiser to address the person who, not only started it (years ago), but continues it, everytime I come to this forum (which is not often, anymore). Otherwise, it appears that you are playing favorites or trying to protect your "Christian" friends.

I also enjoy talking about religion, Jesus and his teachings and all other things spiritual...especially with people who know how to have a civil discussion and who do not always take it to a personal level.
....."He started it...."


that's what you want to say eh?

[James Banta]

Maybe you need to read your Bible, it clearly states that there are degrees of sin. There is even one sin so bad it is unforgivable (in this life OR THE NEXT)

I would love to see where there are degrees of sin can you show a reference? I show Rev 21:8 as proof that there are no such degrees of sin..


Rev 8:21
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

It would be a guess on my part to believe that you would say that murder or "***** mongering" (Adultery) would be a more serious sin than being fearful, or unbelieving but here God reveals that they are equal in the way He deals with them. Isn't that because before a Holy God sin any sin is serious unto death? Look at the list God has given in this p***age.. See the outcome of the whole list. From murder to lying the the result is the same the second death.. So what under heaven could be a degree of sin in the eyes of God? IHS jim

[James Banta]

total AntiMormon rubbish.... Has this really worked on anyone?

Thank you for agreeing with me that there are degrees if sin.... Although I don't get how that helps yours or James' case any???

Has it worked? No more than telling a JW that Jesus is the Mighty God the everlasting Father and not the angel Michael.. They see that as anti watchtower rubbish.. Truth never the less is truth.. Mormonism is the only religion of all that call themselves Christian that praises a man and teaches that that man lays plans for for the church.. Mormonism has defied Joseph Smith, and while doing that they lay doubt that the Bible can be trusted right in their creed.. Of those that can read the ancient languages they will tell you that the KJV, the NIV, the NASB are all good and faithful translation. Such people will understand the impossibility of changing the text of the thousands on thousands of m****cripts held by churches all over the known world at the time they were in common use..

Jesus did teach us that there is one unforgivable sin.. All other sin can be forgiven but that one sin will never be forgiven.. You are in the process of committing that Sin. You believe in mormonism, in a man perfecting himself. In a salvation acquired by works. Yes in faith, and repentance but beyond that subsituting baptism as the means to become cleansed of sin instead of the blood of Jesus, then adding what men can do in the form of baptism and what you can try but fail to do in enduring to the end in righteousness. Each day you try to conform yourself to mormonism instead of allowing God to conform you to the image of Jesus you are one day nearing to your personal commission of that unforgivable sin..

If you have such a need to devide sin in to catagories you can divide the common sins of man such as murder, adultery, stealing, and lying from the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Those are your only two divisions. IHS jim

[Libby]

....."He started it...."


that's what you want to say eh?

And, you don't care, as it appears you are more uncomfortable pointing a finger at James, than at me? Have you ever heard the saying, "No Justice, No Peace"? :)

Anyway, enough of this. Time to move on.

[Libby]

Say something deserving of respect and I will use a different tone..

I could say the same of you (even more so). But, I don't think you're going to change, no matter what I say. You haven't even realized, yet, that we were agreeing, the whole time you were putting me down and twisting my words into something you "thought" I was saying. You really need to slow down and read more carefully. That, and dump the arrogant, know it all at***ude. We can learn something from almost everyone.


Till then I give in you win you can believe that God will judge all unconfused sin differently with more or less punishment maybe some will only have to dangle their feet in the Lake of Fire.. IHS jim

See what I mean? I never said this or even implied it. This is not what I said and not what I believe. Want to try again?

(On second thought, nevermind. I never intended to stay here. I'm out. Peace and blessings)

[James Banta]

[Libby;154755]I could say the same of you (even more so). But, I don't think you're going to change, no matter what I say. You haven't even realized, yet, that we were agreeing, the whole time you were putting me down and twisting my words into something you "thought" I was saying. You really need to slow down and read more carefully. That, and dump the arrogant, know it all at***ude. We can learn something from almost everyone.

I have agreed with you that you are right on that point... I DO KNOW IT ALL...


See what I mean? I never said this or even implied it. This is not what I said and not what I believe. Want to try again?

It's not me that is saying all sin aren't equal in the sight of God that was you.. So if there are different levels of sin before God there must be different punishments.. I still would like to know what the different levels of punishment can be.. Are you also siding with the mormons that there are different levels of heaven?


(On second thought, nevermind. I never intended to stay here. I'm out. Peace and blessings)

YEAH... IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Ok....if that is all over now ?....then I think I might see a topic here worth posting on....

[alanmolstad]

are all sins equal?.........









My answer is "Well yes, and no"

[alanmolstad]

here is another question.....


are all punishments for sin the same?






"well yes and no"

[alanmolstad]

any challenges to this?......





You in the back there, got a question?

[Libby]

Okay, I can't leave while James is still making stuff up.


It's not me that is saying all sin aren't equal in the sight of God that was you.

I never said that, Jim...and neither did Alan. You are simply not comprehending what is being said.

Please, at least, read Alan's posts, if you couldn't understand mine (and NO you didn't understand...again!)


YEAH... IHS jim

Nice, Jim. You could type that and then put "In His Name"? If that was "In His Name" it was taking his name in vain.

Maybe I had better stick around for awhile.

[alanmolstad]

Okay, I can't leave while James is still making stuff up.
.
um......I think the advice i gave was to "overlook" the things that upset you so.....

[Libby]

any challenges to this?......





You in the back there, got a question?

I understand exactly what you're saying and where you're going with this. You are correct.

James is, for some reason, conflating the two separate points you are making.

We humans do make a distinction between sins. Some are worse than others and our punishments for those sins vary in degrees.

But, God makes no such distinction (according to the Bible). All sin, even the least of it, is ****ing to the soul.

[Libby]

um......I think the advice i gave was to "overlook" the things that upset you so.....

I'm not going to overlook it, when someone puts words in my mouth that I never said. Sorry. Came back to clear the record.

[alanmolstad]

and libby said '

"
We humans do make a distinction between sins. Some are worse than others and our punishments for those sins vary in degrees.

But, God makes no such distinction (according to the Bible). All sin, even the least of it, is ****ing to the soul.




(edited for emphasis....)

[alanmolstad]

guess what Libby.....God knows all sins are not equal too......its not just a human thingy

[Libby]

If we have a truly "just" God, I would think so. But, I think many of your Evangelical friends will disagree.

How do you Biblically justify that opinion? (Not saying you are wrong, just curious)

[Libby]

Found this online - someone who uses scripture to justify your position.

1. Christ tells Pilate that the Jewish leaders have committed a worse sin than him, saying, “He who has handed me over to you has committed the greater sin” (Jn. 19:11, emphasis mine).

2. Certain sins in the law are distinguished in a particular context as an abomination to God, implying that others are not as severe (e.g. Lev. 18:22; Deut. 7:25, Deut. 23:18, Isa. 41:24).

3. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is set apart as a more severe sin than blasphemy of the Son (Matt. 12:31)

4. Proverbs 6:16-19 lists particular sins in such a way as to single them out because of their depraved nature, separating them from others.

5. There are degrees of punishment in Hell depending on the severity of the offense (Lk. 12:47-48).

6. Christ often evaluates the sin of the Pharisees as greater than the sins of others. You strain out a gnat while you swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24). If all sins are equal, Christ’s rebuke does not make any sense. (See also Lk. 20:46-47)

7. Similarly, Christ also talked about the “weightier things of the law” (Matt. 23:23). If all sins are equal, there is no law (or violation of that law) that is “weightier than others.” They are all the same weight.

Comes from an interesting article on the subject.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/09/all-sins-are-equal-in-gods-sight-and-other-stupid-statements/

[Libby]

You do realize, this issue is one of the talking points against Mormonism.

In Mormonism (as in Catholicism) they do believe in the gradation of sin. That God distinguishes and "blesses" accordingly.

[alanmolstad]

If we have a truly "just" God, I would think so. But, I think many of your Evangelical friends will disagree.
you clearly think I hang with uninformed friends.....I dont

[alanmolstad]

How do you Biblically justify that opinion?



well...there are many Bible verses to support my views....as you likely guessed as i only believe what i can prove with the scriptures......

[alanmolstad]

ok,,,first...are all sins equal?


the correct answer is "yes and no"


this is because you have to define the context of things....
"Yes" all sins are equal in that from the biggest sin to the smallest you can be sent to hell for doing....it does not matter if its even a very small sin...you burn.....see James 2:10


but on the other hand.....



On the other hand "No"

God is not crazy ..he knows there is a HUGE difference between and murder and stealing a cookie.
This is why Jesus does talk about a range of sins at John 19:11

[alanmolstad]

now....what was that other thing i listed?....

Oh yes...the fact that we know from the bible that the punishment for all sins is not equal....

see Luke 12:46-47-48

[alanmolstad]

You do realize, this issue is one of the talking points against Mormonism.
.
dont much care....


here is the deal with Mormonism....

the truth is, that this whole Mormon religion was just a thing Joe Smith invented to get young girls to tug down on his zipper.

Now he did copy a lot of the book of Mormon from the king James. so there is going to naturally be a lot of things that I dont have any issues with.

But the truth is that with so much of the Mormon religion simply designed to get guys laid (here or in the afterlife), that i cant help but think "what do I care?"


I really only know the Bible stuff anyway.....if you ask me a Bible question I can likely find you the answer to it.

But Im sure you can tell me all kinds of things about the Mormon "religion" (if you want to call it that) that I don't know.....

So in my many long answers to the many questions and issues you see me make posts on,,,always remember Im going at this from a the point of view of a "Bible Student"....and not that of an "Anti-Mormon"


The Bible I know......so thats what I try to stick to talking about.

[Libby]

well...there are many Bible verses to support my views....as you likely guessed as i only believe what i can prove with the scriptures......

The thing is, it also supports the views of those who believe all sins are equal and will result in equal punishment (which is spiritual death). My intellect understands what you're saying and I do believe a "Just" God would have different consequences according to the severity of the sin. But, I can also see why people come away with the idea that all sin is equal and will have equal consequences (without Christ).

This is a very good example of what I was talking about, in regards to varying interpretations and beliefs that Christians can come away with, from reading the Bible. Everything is not perfectly clear, as some claim. It's only "perfectly clear", if you pick and choose certain verses to focus on. From the whole, there are many contradictions and things that are difficult to understand.

[Libby]

dont much care....


here is the deal with Mormonism....

the truth is, that this whole Mormon religion was just a thing Joe Smith invented to get young girls to tug down on his zipper.

I don't think they had zippers back then. Probably ****ons. :) At any rate, JS's sealings to very young girls and married women was one of the main issues that turned me away from the church.

I don't know that it was Joseph's "main" purpose for starting this church, but it did (seem to) turn into something rather ugly, later on.


Now he did copy a lot of the book of Mormon from the king James. so there is going to naturally be a lot of things that I dont have any issues with.

Actually, there are only a few chapters from the Book of Isaiah, in the Book of Mormon.


But the truth is that with so much of the Mormon religion simply designed to get guys laid (here or in the afterlife), that i cant help but think "what do I care?"

Well, most LDS critics believe LDS are on a path to hell. They want to try and save them. Are you not concerned about that?


I really only know the Bible stuff anyway.....if you ask me a Bible question I can likely find you the answer to it.

But Im sure you can tell me all kinds of things about the Mormon "religion" (if you want to call it that) that I don't know.....

Yes, I know a lot about Mormonism. But, I was only seven years in the church, so I'm not an expert. I did attend and work in the Temple, though.


So in my many long answers to the many questions and issues you see me make posts on,,,always remember Im going at this from a the point of view of a "Bible Student"....and not that of an "Anti-Mormon"

That's good. I'm glad to hear that.


The Bible I know......so thats what I try to stick to talking about.

I've been exposed to the Bible all of my life, but I think I'm just now really learning about it. I've belonged to a Bible study for several years, now, and we take it a chapter at a time. It has been a pretty in depth study. I started by reading the whole Bible through, in 90 days (that was a couple of years ago). I think I definitely bit off more than I could chew. I came away from that very disillusioned and frustrated. Studying it slow and steady has been a much better experience.

[Libby]

ok,,,first...are all sins equal?


the correct answer is "yes and no"


this is because you have to define the context of things....
"Yes" all sins are equal in that from the biggest sin to the smallest you can be sent to hell for doing....it does not matter if its even a very small sin...you burn.....see James 2:10


but on the other hand.....



On the other hand "No"

God is not crazy ..he knows there is a HUGE difference between and murder and stealing a cookie.
This is why Jesus does talk about a range of sins at John 19:11

So, if "God is not crazy", as you said, why would he punish everyone the same, of those who do not accept Jesus Christ?

Your Bible reference is interesting...and perplexing, in a way.

…10 So Pilate said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?"

11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

12 As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out saying, "If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar."…

Jesus is telling Pontius Pilate that the only authority he has is what is given from above....this makes those who delivered him over to Pilate more sinful.

So, is he saying God's hand was in what Pilate was doing...but, not in what the Jewish leaders were doing, thus making the Jewish leaders more responsible for their sin?

I always thought God's hand was in the whole process. But, then, of course, this thing with predestination and God's sovereignty, brings up questions about culpability. How can one be responsible for something God is totally orchestrating?

[alanmolstad]

I don't think they had zippers back then. Probably ****ons. :) At any rate, JS's sealings to very young girls and married women was one of the main issues that turned me away from the church.

...........he clearly was a horny little dog....

[alanmolstad]

Well, most LDS critics believe LDS are on a path to hell. They want to try and save them. Are you not concerned about that?


am I concerned that all the Mormons are on their way to hell?....


do you think I accidentally stop by here every day?

[alanmolstad]

Yes, I know a lot about Mormonism. But, I was only seven years in the church, so I'm not an expert. I did attend and work in the Temple, though.



You did the "handshake" thingy?

if you did, I have a question about that

[alanmolstad]

Studying it slow and steady has been a much better experience.

I like my old NIV study bible due to all the footnotes and connections and helps listed...so I can find all the places where the same idea or the same word is used at other places....

[alanmolstad]

…10 So Pilate said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?"

11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above;


So many people ***ume that Jesus was talking about God the father with this comment.....

Want to **** their minds?....tell them, "No it's simply talking about the Roman Caesar....you know the guy higher up than Pilate"

[James Banta]

Okay, I can't leave while James is still making stuff up.



I never said that, Jim...and neither did Alan. You are simply not comprehending what is being said.

Please, at least, read Alan's posts, if you couldn't understand mine (and NO you didn't understand...again!)



Nice, Jim. You could type that and then put "In His Name"? If that was "In His Name" it was taking his name in vain.

Maybe I had better stick around for awhile.

Great then you see all sin and being equal. That none except the denial of the Holy Spirit is any more serious than another. That murder, and adultery is no more serious than lying? If that is what you are saying IT'S ABOUT TIME.

Yes I said YEAH and did so in the name of Jesus.. For we are commanded to bring our differences to each other, then to two or three others, and then finally to the Church.. This was followed in your case.. But your attacks against the Bible and then individual Christians increased, they didn't diminish.. So as to the scripture I treat you as an unbeliever.. It makes me happy to see you wanting to leave the forum.. I have asked you to leave many times.

A good friend of mine had a saying "We all bring happiness to this place, some by coming some by leaving".. You bring happiness by leaving.

So I stick by what I first said here.. All sin, other than the unforgivable sin, are the same before a Holy God.. There is no difference in commission of murder and telling a little white lie.. Before Him sin is sin.. Lying is sin as I have shown again and again.. Not just a mean hateful lie, or lie meant to conceal other evil, but as it taught in the scripture "all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.".. All liars means those that tell little white lies to those who are involved in serious perjury. All such are liars.. It is a crime that left unconfused in worthy of ****ation. IHS jim

[James Banta]

I'm not going to overlook it, when someone puts words in my mouth that I never said. Sorry. Came back to clear the record.

Libby you have attacked the Bible as not being completely the word of God and yes I am speaking of the ancient history of Israel, Sampson pulling down the pillars, and Gideon choosing only the men who lapped up water like a dog to save Israel, even the genealogies of the patriarchs.. No words have been put in your mouth. You had been fully a nonbeliever for well over a 2 years.. Are you back? Is that what you are trying to tell me.. or are you still going to support mormon arguments that there is more than one God, and that have the biblical authority to appoint as many High Priests as seems good to them..

I am not going to go through years worth of posts to point out all the accepting language you have held for mormonism. If you don't remember the acceptance you have given to mormonism even to the point of quoting Eastern religions as your authority for doing so, all I can say is, your memory is as bad as your bitterness for those that see the Bible as their uncompromising authority.. IHS jim

[Libby]

So many people ***ume that Jesus was talking about God the father with this comment.....

Want to **** their minds?....tell them, "No it's simply talking about the Roman Caesar....you know the guy higher up than Pilate"

You know what? I actually thought of that as a possibility! That's very interesting that you bring it up. :) Is that in the NIV study notes?

[Libby]

I like my old NIV study bible due to all the footnotes and connections and helps listed...so I can find all the places where the same idea or the same word is used at other places....

Yeah, we use the NIV Study Bible in cl***. I used to have one of my own, but the print was soooo small, it just wasn't practical, so I gave it away. I need to buy a new one in larger print. We have a bunch of them at church, so I usually use one of theirs for cl***. I do like the footnotes.

[alanmolstad]

My NIV is about...um.....23 years old?.....Im not sure.
I know its in bad shape...missing pages, covers gone, and a lot of marks and highlights.
I have not went looking for a new one yet.
A few years ago I noticed that there is a newer NIV Study Bible that has a different set of notes and ways to help students find the connecting verses.

Although a lot of stuff is on computer now...I still kinda like the idea of holding a big, thick book when I do some real research....

[RealFakeHair]

My NIV is about...um.....23 years old?.....Im not sure.
I know its in bad shape...missing pages, covers gone, and a lot of marks and highlights.
I have not went looking for a new one yet.
A few years ago I noticed that there is a newer NIV Study Bible that has a different set of notes and ways to help students find the connecting verses.

Although a lot of stuff is on computer now...I still kinda like the idea of holding a big, thick book when I do some real research....

I don't think, my comic books are that thick, but I still kinda like the idea of holding them in my hands,

[alanmolstad]

You know what? I actually thought of that as a possibility! That's very interesting that you bring it up. :) Is that in the NIV study notes?

One time i was in a youth Bible study, way back in about 1975 i think, and we were looking at this section of the Scriptures, and the teacher was going on and on about how the "from Above" wording was pointing to god, and how God had given Pilate the power over Christ.....

But I looked at this argument, and found it seemed to be an answer that did not really fit the context....

The main point we take from this verse is that Jesus talks about the greater sin of this other unnamed person.
Jesus says the the person who "delivered Me to you has the greater sin."...

The cl*** was asked "Who is this person?"
Many in the cl*** pointed to Judas , but my thinking was that Judas did not actually turn Jesus over to the Romans.
the person who did that was Caiaphas the high priest.

Now Caiaphas actually had authority, whereas Jesus points out that Pilate was simply carrying out the rule of Rome at the time.

In other words, Jesus remarks that He knows that Pilate was just a middle-man.

Now when you look at the sentence Jesus makes, you note that Jesus is pointing to something else too..
Lets look at the verse again.
""You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

Do you see the "for this reason" part?
I think this is the key to understanding the thing Jesus was pointing to.

What is 'this reason"?>......

What do you think it is?

[James Banta]

One time i was in a youth Bible study, way back in about 1975 i think, and we were looking at this section of the Scriptures, and the teacher was going on and on about how the "from Above" wording was pointing to god, and how God had given Pilate the power over Christ.....

But I looked at this argument, and found it seemed to be an answer that did not really fit the context....

The main point we take from this verse is that Jesus talks about the greater sin of this other unnamed person.
Jesus says the the person who "delivered Me to you has the greater sin."...

The cl*** was asked "Who is this person?"
Many in the cl*** pointed to Judas , but my thinking was that Judas did not actually turn Jesus over to the Romans.
the person who did that was Caiaphas the high priest.

Now Caiaphas actually had authority, whereas Jesus points out that Pilate was simply carrying out the rule of Rome at the time.

In other words, Jesus remarks that He knows that Pilate was just a middle-man.

Now when you look at the sentence Jesus makes, you note that Jesus is pointing to something else too..
Lets look at the verse again.
""You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

Do you see the "for this reason" part?
I think this is the key to understanding the thing Jesus was pointing to.

What is 'this reason"?>......

What do you think it is?

Interesting reasoning. Is it in your mind that God didn't appoint the Romans to their position over the land? Was this not even in His permissive will, if not His perfect will? And it is also your idea that the Sanhedrin was not an extension of Roman authority allowed by the procurator of Rome to give the conquered a semblance of self rule? But it was still operated through the authority of the Romans? But that is only how I see it.. I think either way you see it conforms to the scripture.. I have no problem with you holding that the Jews of the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to the Romans.. Can you see your point that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to the Romans and not Judas. Can you see my thinking that Judas turned Jesus over to the Sanhedrin, the Roman authority? After all the Romans set up that council to give Israel the allusion of autonomous government.. Do you really believe that Roman control wasn't the real power of the Sanhedrin? IHS jim

[James Banta]

I don't think they had zippers back then. Probably ****ons. :) At any rate, JS's sealings to very young girls and married women was one of the main issues that turned me away from the church.

I don't know that it was Joseph's "main" purpose for starting this church, but it did (seem to) turn into something rather ugly, later on.

It wasn't "Later on" by 1833 Smith made it first moves on Fanny Alger.. Just two years after the cult was officially organized.. That is hardly later on.. At the time Smith took her as a "Wife" she was just 16 years old while Smith was 28.. He started off in pedophilia and allowed his lust to extend to any woman who would allow his attentions even if it took some fast taking and dragging God into his behavior.. He was a pervert and worse in using God to gain the access to women he craved.. This man was never a prophet he was a conman and a sexual predator..


Actually, there are only a few chapters from the Book of Isaiah, in the Book of Mormon.

What is a few to you How about 20 chapters? See below..



Isaiah 2
2 Nephi 12



Isaiah 3
2 Nephi 13


Isaiah 4
2 Nephi 14


Isaiah 5
2 Nephi 15


Isaiah 6
2 Nephi 1


Isaiah 7
2 Nephi 17


Isaiah 8
2 Nephi 18


Isaiah 9
2 Nephi 19


Isaiah 10
2 Nephi 20


Isaiah 11
2 Nephi 21


Isaiah 12
2 Nephi 22


Isaiah 13
2 Nephi 23


Isaiah 14
2 Nephi 24


Isaiah 48
1 Nephi 20


Isaiah 49
1 Nephi 21


Isaiah 50
2 Nephi 7


Isaiah 51
2 Nephi 8


Isaiah 52
3 Nephi 20


Isaiah 53
Mosiah 14


Isaiah 54
3 Nephi 22



This isn't a list generated by some Anti-mormon organization this is from http://www.mormonhandbook.com.. That is a very pro-LDS site..


Well, most LDS critics believe LDS are on a path to hell. They want to try and save them. Are you not concerned about that?

Since there is no salvation found in the worship of false Gods. There is no salvation in mormonism.. The believe that God is a glorified man that became a god through His own efforts in keeping all his gods laws and preforming all his gods ordinances. He is nothing more than a man that became a god.. You know that the Bible teaches that God has been eternally God, That He is NOT A MAN.. That He is invisible God of whom Jesus is the tangible image.. Is not the worship of false Gods, no matter who invents them, the "Path to hell"?


Yes, I know a lot about Mormonism. But, I was only seven years in the church, so I'm not an expert. I did attend and work in the Temple, though.

Sadly I was in the church a bit longer than that.. I wish I could transfer all I gave then to a Christian charity.. Maybe some real good could be done with those funds. It is clear that mormonism is far more concerned with the dead and doing temple work for them than it is anything else. I would like to see what monies God has given me to be steward of used to help the living..


I've been exposed to the Bible all of my life, but I think I'm just now really learning about it. I've belonged to a Bible study for several years, now, and we take it a chapter at a time. It has been a pretty in depth study. I started by reading the whole Bible through, in 90 days (that was a couple of years ago). I think I definitely bit off more than I could chew. I came away from that very disillusioned and frustrated. Studying it slow and steady has been a much better experience.

There is a huge difference between Reading God's word and studying it.. I believe that both should be directed by the Holy Spirit and not by the order they are set withing the record.. All new-ish believers should always start in the Gospel of John. Then they should read Romans.. After all Romans was written directly to Gentile believers.. But you can do it your way and start in Genesis and WORK your way to the Revelation. I will do both my reading and my study as He directs me.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Interesting reasoning. Is it in your mind that God didn't appoint the Romans to their position over the land? ......

As far as i know, the "authority" that Jesus is talking about, comes from Rome.....its from Caesar.


That is the point Jesus is making when he compares this guy to the other guy.....

[alanmolstad]

...... Was this not even in His permissive will, if not His perfect will?


I dont think Jesus was talking about that stuff at all......

jesus was making a point in comparing the culpability of two men....Pilate compared to Caiaphas.

[alanmolstad]

And it is also your idea that the Sanhedrin was not an extension of Roman authority allowed by the procurator of Rome to give the conquered a semblance of self rule?

thats a long question...LOL

I believe the main point Jesus is making is the "for this reason" part of the verse......

[alanmolstad]

Can you see my thinking that Judas turned Jesus over to the Sanhedrin, the Roman authority? After all the Romans set up that council to give Israel the allusion of autonomous government.. Do you really believe that Roman control wasn't the real power of the Sanhedrin? IHS jim



Thats a long question...

What i can see is that Jesus was turning to the guy who just said that he had the "authority" over life and death of him...and Jesus was pointing out that while Pilate is still a guilty party in the murder of an innocent man, his blame is less due to the fact that Pilate was just carrying out Roman law as he had been charged to do by Rome.
So Jesus is calling Pilate a "middle-man", whereas Caiaphas was simply out to kill Jesus for being Jesus.

Jesus is telling Pilate, "Your authority?..you dont have any real authority, your so-called 'authority' is actually someone else's"
This is the reason Jesus was more or less telling Pilate that he was kinda "off the hook" for the blame in killing a known innocent men.



this is the "For this reason" that is key to understanding the point Jesus is making to Pilate, and why Pilate heard this and right away tried to let Jesus go free.....


Jesus is also saying that Caiaphas has more blame in this murder of an innocent men.
Caiaphas is not a middle-man in this story...

[James Banta]

Ok....if that is all over now ?....then I think I might see a topic here worth posting on....

No not as long as she is still here teaching the world that mormonism is a wonderful way to God.. I will call her every time something erred come out of her mind and onto the forum.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

[Libby;154728]Alan, why don't you say that to James? He is the one who ALWAYS makes the conversation personal. Believe me, I am not the kind of person who normally does that, but James really needs to hear how he comes across, especially, if he's going to try and p*** himself off as some kind of "teacher". He is extremely offensive.

It is mormonism and those that pander mormonism that are offensive.. If you know anyone that has pandered that religion, not holding that it is a blind guide of blind followers they need to be corrected.. I teach no one.. I call on the Holy Spirit through His word to do that.. I just point the way for those in error to find the word spoke about the error they are bathing in..


You can check this forum and see that I would much rather address issues and have done so, numerous times. I have started many threads and most all of my posts are on topic. I don't LIKE to get personal with anyone, but James has a very long history of saying rude and condescending things to me as well as to others.. and I won't put up with it anymore. If he wants to play that game, I will play it.

Yes you play it nicely.. You know the worst thin I have said about you Libby? It that I want you to GO AWAY.. You have flipped out in the past thinking that was a command.. It wasn't anything more than a request and it still stands.. You aren't helping here at all.


Notice, he doesn't like it much when he gets some of his own behavior thrown back at him.

Like I told Fig, Vlad, Snow, Richard as examples, BRING IT ON.. I don't call you on any sin other than pandering to the mormon error. But you can start exposing all you can see in me.. Unlike your charge that I have just been making things up I have shown you what you have said.. After I have done so you have had no more to say.. I remained you how your connection to Eastern cults had eroded your faith at least in the word of God, if not in God Himself. So bring on your bitterness toward me.. I will allow God to correct you though His word..

As for my sin I have given it to Jesus and asked for me to forgive me.. He promised and by my faith in Him to keep His promise I claim to be forgiven of my sin and cleansed from all unrighteousness.. IHS jim
IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

if....we might return our attention to things that matter.....

[James Banta]

And, I would suggest, to you, that it would be wiser to address the person who, not only started it (years ago), but continues it, everytime I come to this forum (which is not often, anymore). Otherwise, it appears that you are playing favorites or trying to protect your "Christian" friends.

I also enjoy talking about religion, Jesus and his teachings and all other things spiritual...especially with people who know how to have a civil discussion and who do not always take it to a personal level.

Instead of gossiping with Alan about other posters why don't you take it to the source of your anger and deal with it with him.. I have a personal connection to my Lord and through His word I know He has a personal connection to me.. If I disagree with you it isn't personal until you get mad for being called on your beliefs and are convicted for holding lies to be truth.. Lies like the LDS are Christian. Lies like being "Good", is the way to heaven. Lies like there are many paths to God.. I could believe it when you said that when you were into your eastern cults.. You should have known even then that Jesus is the way and that no one come to the Father but by Him..

Alan an I are strained quite often.. The thing is he doesn't pander his faith by saying that mormonism is just as true and the Faith that the Church has held from the days of the Apostle Paul.. He has never said that the Gospel was ever lost in all that time. As I remember you have.. If you are back say so.. If you see mormonism as having had more lies in it than polygamy, say so.. If not I would still like you to GO AWAY.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

if....we might return our attention to things that matter.............it's a big "if"....

[James Banta]

any challenges to this?......

You in the back there, got a question?

Are all sin equal in the sight of God? YES, unequivocally.. Is the punishment the same, YES.. The wages of sin is death.. Since in Adam all Die and in Christ Jesus all men be made alive, the teaching that the wages of sin must be more than mere physical death.. It must be eternal spiritual death.. It is described in the scripture as a Lake of Fire..

If you have some Biblical evidence that explains this differently, I am interested is considering what you have to say.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

I understand exactly what you're saying and where you're going with this. You are correct.

James is, for some reason, conflating the two separate points you are making.

We humans do make a distinction between sins. Some are worse than others and our punishments for those sins vary in degrees.

But, God makes no such distinction (according t;o the Bible). All sin, even the least of it, is ****ing to the soul.

The only concern I have with what men think about sin it's levels and appropriate punishments on this forum is what mormonism believe about levels of sin and levels of sin's punishment. What men see in our governments and our communal punishment for sin is outside the subject of this forum.. So I speck to what the Bible teaches about God's view of sin.. So in that Biblical view of sin; all sin is equally soul destroying before a Holy God. It doesn't matter if it is m*** murder or a little while lie about the taste of grandma's cookies.. Nothing about man's judgements of sin is appropriate for a discussion on sin on the forum.. Anything but the Biblical seriousness of sin need to be mentioned here.. If you agree with that then you have improved 1000% in your knowledge as understanding.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

all sins are equal?
the correct answer is....'yes and no"



But you have to make sure you define your context or else you just keep going round and round over nothing...

[James Banta]

[Libby;154769]Found this online - someone who uses scripture to justify your position.

1. Christ tells Pilate that the Jewish leaders have committed a worse sin than him, saying, “He who has handed me over to you has committed the greater sin” (Jn. 19:11, emphasis mine).

There is a sin unto death.. Could the Sanhedrin have committed such a sin in their desire to me rid of Jesus? What is a "sin unto death", maybe a sin that causes the Holy Spirit to stop striving with your spirit.. Isn't the sin unto death a deliberate, willful, continuous, unrepentant sin?


2. Certain sins in the law are distinguished in a particular context as an abomination to God, implying that others are not as severe (e.g. Lev. 18:22; Deut. 7:25, Deut. 23:18, Isa. 41:24).

So which is worse; having other Gods before the Lord, being ****sexual. Bringing the hire of a *****, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow. Maybe since all these things are an abomination to God he sees them as equally evil?


3. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is set apart as a more severe sin than blasphemy of the Son (Matt. 12:31)

I have conceded that this is the most serious sin anyone can commit. But Unlike mormonism it will be the most common (In fact the ONLY sin to demand an answer at the Great White Throne). All other sin will have been forgiven but to turn from the grace of God to anything including your own good works will bring the guilt of denying the Holy Spirit onto all that stand there to be judged.. So not only is it the most serious it is the only sin that counts..


4. Proverbs 6:16-19 lists particular sins in such a way as to single them out because of their depraved nature, separating them from others.

These are all very serious before a Holy God but are you telling me that you see making mischief as equal with stealing which for some reason doesn't make it onto the list.. Maybe just because God mentions one sin and not another doesn't dismiss either as not being as much as an abomination as another.. Look at the p***age, murder is listed with mischief and bearing false witness with sowing discord.. That would mean just what I have been saying all along.. Even the sin of mischief is equal before God ad MURDER..


5. There are degrees of punishment in Hell depending on the severity of the offense (Lk. 12:47-48).
How we have to judge if this is the eternal punishment of the wicked or is it the pains we all have in life that is being spoken of.. To obey God and live like His return will be this afternoon will cause us greater peace and joy in life.. But to avoid following Him will lead us to despair in this life.. Look at those that end up in prison if you doubt this..


6. Christ often evaluates the sin of the Pharisees as greater than the sins of others. You strain out a gnat while you swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24). If all sins are equal, Christ’s rebuke does not make any sense. (See also Lk. 20:46-47)

Here again they have received a blessing in life and took their reward here.. It will be greater to fall all the way from the hights of their pride to find themselves in the torments of the Lake of Fire..


7. Similarly, Christ also talked about the “weightier things of the law” (Matt. 23:23). If all sins are equal, there is no law (or violation of that law) that is “weightier than others.” They are all the same weight.

Great we need to add hypocrisy to a a sin that is included as a weightier thing of the law. That doesn't mean that Jesus excluded all other sin as being just as serious before a Holy God.. Maybe giving of our temporal wealth isn't that important.. I would only say to giving where God directs us is to show what our real treasures are..


Comes from an interesting article on the subject.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/09/all-sins-are-equal-in-gods-sight-and-other-stupid-statements/
While I see your point I see truth in what I have had the Holy Spirit has taught to me on the terrible cost of all sin in all these points.. I have added my comments that are based in the scripture. All sin before a Holy God is soul destroying.. It doesn't matter how serious we see that sin to be, it will bring death on the sinner.. IHS jim

[Libby]

One time i was in a youth Bible study, way back in about 1975 i think, and we were looking at this section of the Scriptures, and the teacher was going on and on about how the "from Above" wording was pointing to god, and how God had given Pilate the power over Christ.....

But I looked at this argument, and found it seemed to be an answer that did not really fit the context....

The main point we take from this verse is that Jesus talks about the greater sin of this other unnamed person.
Jesus says the the person who "delivered Me to you has the greater sin."...

The cl*** was asked "Who is this person?"
Many in the cl*** pointed to Judas , but my thinking was that Judas did not actually turn Jesus over to the Romans.
the person who did that was Caiaphas the high priest.

Now Caiaphas actually had authority, whereas Jesus points out that Pilate was simply carrying out the rule of Rome at the time.

In other words, Jesus remarks that He knows that Pilate was just a middle-man.

Now when you look at the sentence Jesus makes, you note that Jesus is pointing to something else too..
Lets look at the verse again.
""You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

Do you see the "for this reason" part?
I think this is the key to understanding the thing Jesus was pointing to.

What is 'this reason"?>......

What do you think it is?

Yes, this does seem to fit.

"for this reason"....the reason being that the high priests were really the ones who wanted Jesus dead. They had malicious and evil intent, in their actions. Pilate, as you said, was simply caught in the middle, and his intent, really, was a desire to see Jesus released, because he could not find any good reason to hold him.

[Libby]

if....we might return our attention to things that matter.....

Thanks, Alan.

I've put James on ignore. Quite peaceful, that way. :)

[alanmolstad]

Thanks, Alan.

....

some people scoff at the idea, but I have found it never fails to make the whole world a lot more nicer to be part of.

[Libby]

some people scoff at the idea, but I have found it never fails to make the whole world a lot more nicer to be part of.

Yes, as I've always said, I much prefer non-contentious discussions, where people actually listen to and behave respectfully towards one another.

[James Banta]

Yes, as I've always said, I much prefer non-contentious discussions, where people actually listen to and behave respectfully towards one another.

Really? Then let me continue with this:

You snakes, what make you think you can escape from the judgments of God to find yourselves in the Lake of Fire.. Is that non contentious and Christ like? IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Yes, as I've always said, I much prefer non-contentious discussions, where people actually listen to and behave respectfully towards one another.......

Saint Paul gives us a good example of what you are saying...

I quote :
"Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. "

[Libby]

......

Saint Paul gives us a good example of what you are saying...

I quote :
"Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. "

Ah, yes, I love that! :)

[Billyray]

Do you really believe that you are no longer responsible for your sins, James? That, it is not "you" who sins, but some THING that sins against your will?

If that's true, you are no longer responsible for your sins and have no need of Jesus.

How did you come to the conclusion that Jim doesn't need Jesus based on anything he has said in any of his posts?

[Libby]

How did you come to the conclusion that Jim doesn't need Jesus based on anything he has said in any of his posts?

I never came to that conclusion. I saw that as the erroneous conclusion he was headed towards, while trying to explain certain scripture.

And, I'm not going to discuss it further. I have James on ignore and I don't want to continue a discussion that neither of us really want to have.

[Billyray]

. . .I never came to that conclusion. I saw that as the erroneous conclusion he was headed towards, while trying to explain certain scripture.

Let's break up your statement and look at it a bit more closely.

I never came to that conclusion.

I saw that as the erroneous conclusion he was headed towards, while trying to explain certain scripture.
Don't you see the problem here Libby?

[Libby]

No, I don't.

You asked:


How did you come to the conclusion that Jim doesn't need Jesus

I answered: "I never came to that conclusion." I didn't ever come to that conclusion because I know that James does need Jesus Christ.

I just felt his explanation made it appear that he didn't.

Hope that was more clear.

[Billyray]

No, I don't.

You asked:



I answered: "I never came to that conclusion." I didn't ever come to that conclusion because I know that James does need Jesus Christ.

I just felt his explanation made it appear that he didn't.

Hope that was more clear.

Thanks for the clarification.

But I think that anyone who looks at Jim's post knows that he has been extraordinarily clear that he needs Christ for salvation.

[Libby]

Thanks for the clarification.

But I think that anyone who looks at Jim's post knows that he has been extraordinarily clear that he needs Christ for salvation.

Yes, I agree, James makes that very clear.

I was looking more at the logic of his statements. It had more to do with my problems with Calvinist thinking, than anything personal against James.

[Billyray]

Yes, I agree, James makes that very clear.

I was looking more at the logic of his statements. It had more to do with my problems with Calvinist thinking, than anything personal against James.
Both the Arminian AND Calvinist position believe that faith in Christ is the basis for salvation.

[Libby]

Both the Arminian AND Calvinist position believe that faith in Christ is the basis for salvation.

Yes, I know that. I just think there are problems with the extreme emphasis on God's sovereignty, in Calvinism. It appears (to me) to make man less responsible for his behavior.

But, I don't think we should get off on a tangent about Calvinism. Been there, done that (you and I) many times.

[Billyray]

Yes, I know that. I just think there are problems with the extreme emphasis on God's sovereignty, in Calvinism. It appears (to me) to make man less responsible for his behavior.

But, I don't think we should get off on a tangent about Calvinism. Been there, done that (you and I) many times.

I think it is hard for those who were raised mormon (such as myself) or for converts to mormonism for that matter--who are taught that their own works are ultimately what saves them--to understand and to accept that God's is sovereign over His creation. To them it just doesn't make a lot of sense and my opinion is that because they were engrained for so many years that man is sovereign--not God--they just can't seem to wrap their mind around the concept that God is truly sovereign over his creation. However God's sovereignty is taught extensively in the Bible from start to finish.

[Libby]

I think it is hard for those who were raised mormon (such as myself) or for converts to mormonism for that matter--who are taught that their own works are ultimately what saves them--to understand and to accept that God's is sovereign over His creation. To them it just doesn't make a lot of sense and my opinion is that because they were engrained for so many years that man is sovereign--not God--they just can't seem to wrap their mind around the concept that God is truly sovereign over his creation. However God's sovereignty is taught extensively in the Bible from start to finish.

I agree man's agency is very important in Mormonism, but isn't it also important in regards to responsibility? Culpability? That's my thinking. If God is completely sovereign, then isn't he also completely responsible?

I do see that God's sovereignty is a main theme throughout the Bible, which is why I embraced Calvinism, at one time.

[alanmolstad]

isn't he also completely responsible?

.God is responsible for the things He does....just as you and I are responsible for the things we do...

[James Banta]

all sins are equal?
the correct answer is....'yes and no"



But you have to make sure you define your context or else you just keep going round and round over nothing...

I believe this makes it clear..

"Are all sin equal in the sight of God? YES, unequivocally." IHS jim

[James Banta]

Okay, I can't leave while James is still making stuff up.



I never said that, Jim...and neither did Alan. You are simply not comprehending what is being said.

Please, at least, read Alan's posts, if you couldn't understand mine (and NO you didn't understand...again!)



Nice, Jim. You could type that and then put "In His Name"? If that was "In His Name" it was taking his name in vain.

Maybe I had better stick around for awhile.

You have the right to be here all you want.. You can continue to pander to the LDS in the name of being nice.. Just understand Jesus NEVER Pandered to the Pharisees.. He even used name calling.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Thats a long question...

What i can see is that Jesus was turning to the guy who just said that he had the "authority" over life and death of him...and Jesus was pointing out that while Pilate is still a guilty party in the murder of an innocent man, his blame is less due to the fact that Pilate was just carrying out Roman law as he had been charged to do by Rome.
So Jesus is calling Pilate a "middle-man", whereas Caiaphas was simply out to kill Jesus for being Jesus.

Jesus is telling Pilate, "Your authority?..you dont have any real authority, your so-called 'authority' is actually someone else's"
This is the reason Jesus was more or less telling Pilate that he was kinda "off the hook" for the blame in killing a known innocent men.



this is the "For this reason" that is key to understanding the point Jesus is making to Pilate, and why Pilate heard this and right away tried to let Jesus go free.....


Jesus is also saying that Caiaphas has more blame in this murder of an innocent men.
Caiaphas is not a middle-man in this story...

Not that it is a point that makes much difference but I disagree.. I believe that even the authority of Rome was given by God.. All things are done in accordance to God's will either perfect or permissive.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Not that it is a point that makes much difference but I disagree.. I believe that even the authority of Rome was given by God.. All things are done in accordance to God's will either perfect or permissive.. IHS jim

I dont believe that the "from above" Jesus was talking about is God.

Jesus is not talking about "god" here.

That would be in the wrong context, it also would destroy the point Jesus is making with the "for this reason" statement he makes to tell why the man who turned him over has the greater sin.


The "authority" that Pilate was talking about, all came from Rome.
That is the authority that Pilate had to answer to...

Jesus points this out to Pilate.


This statement pointing this out to Pilate by Christ sets the stage for the next comment Jesus made concerning the "for this reason" statement.

When Jesus says, "for this reason" he connects the idea that Pilate was under someone else's authority himself with the idea that the man who turned him over to him was not under such authority.

The man who turned him over was not doing so because he was just "following orders of a higher command".
jesus was pointing out that while Pilate was just attempting to do his *** as best he could under the commands and authority of Rome, the man who turned him over to pilate to be killed was not.

The man who turned him over was doing so only because he had rejected Jesus...He rejected Jesus and now wanted Jesus killed.

This is the "greater sin" that Jesus speaks of.

So Jesus is not saying that Pilate was free of being guilty of sin.

But Jesus was saying that the sins are not equal, and that there is a degree of sins, and that Pilate's sin is lesser than the sin of the man who turned him over to him.


================================================== =

I believe this is the only correct understanding of this text.


Pilate makes a statement to Jesus, telling Jesus that he(Pilate) has all the authority he needs to set Jesus free, or put him to death.

Jesus responds to this by telling Pilate that Pilate actually has no authority on nhis own, but that he had to be given his authority by someone higher up in the Roman chain of command.

Then Jesus points out that for this reason, (being under the chain of command of Rome) the person who just turned him over to Pilate has a greater amount of sin in this situation.
This is because the person who turned him over to Pilate was not under the Roman chain of command at all....and was not being ordered to turn Jesus over to anyone!

[alanmolstad]

..... He even used name calling.. IHS jim....but we must always remember that this forum has rules against name-calling,,,and so doing so is not allowed here no matter who we might want to point to as our example....

[Phoenix]

I dont believe that the "from above" Jesus was talking about is God.

Jesus is not talking about "god" here.

That would be in the wrong context, it also would destroy the point Jesus is making with the "for this reason" statement he makes to tell why the man who turned him over has the greater sin.


The "authority" that Pilate was talking about, all came from Rome.
That is the authority that Pilate had to answer to...

Jesus points this out to Pilate.


This statement pointing this out to Pilate by Christ sets the stage for the next comment Jesus made concerning the "for this reason" statement.

When Jesus says, "for this reason" he connects the idea that Pilate was under someone else's authority himself with the idea that the man who turned him over to him was not under such authority.

The man who turned him over was not doing so because he was just "following orders of a higher command".
jesus was pointing out that while Pilate was just attempting to do his *** as best he could under the commands and authority of Rome, the man who turned him over to pilate to be killed was not.

The man who turned him over was doing so only because he had rejected Jesus...He rejected Jesus and now wanted Jesus killed.

This is the "greater sin" that Jesus speaks of.

So Jesus is not saying that Pilate was free of being guilty of sin.

But Jesus was saying that the sins are not equal, and that there is a degree of sins, and that Pilate's sin is lesser than the sin of the man who turned him over to him.


================================================== =

I believe this is the only correct understanding of this text.


Pilate makes a statement to Jesus, telling Jesus that he(Pilate) has all the authority he needs to set Jesus free, or put him to death.

Jesus responds to this by telling Pilate that Pilate actually has no authority on nhis own, but that he had to be given his authority by someone higher up in the Roman chain of command.

Then Jesus points out that for this reason, (being under the chain of command of Rome) the person who just turned him over to Pilate has a greater amount of sin in this situation.
This is because the person who turned him over to Pilate was not under the Roman chain of command at all....and was not being ordered to turn Jesus over to anyone!

That is an interesting theory that I hadn't seen or considered before. And you made a good case for it being true, IMO. Thanks for posting it.

[Libby]

God is responsible for the things He does....just as you and I are responsible for the things we do...

Yes, I understand that, but when one preaches a completely sovereign God, who has his hand in every aspect of man and the things that go on here, it's more difficult (IMO) to claim man is totally responsible for his actions....and most especially for his unbelief, as God is the only one that can change that. Even further, that God has actually "predestined" a group of believers and left the rest to their own devices.

[RealFakeHair]

I dont believe that the "from above" Jesus was talking about is God.

Jesus is not talking about "god" here.

That would be in the wrong context, it also would destroy the point Jesus is making with the "for this reason" statement he makes to tell why the man who turned him over has the greater sin.


The "authority" that Pilate was talking about, all came from Rome.
That is the authority that Pilate had to answer to...

Jesus points this out to Pilate.


This statement pointing this out to Pilate by Christ sets the stage for the next comment Jesus made concerning the "for this reason" statement.

When Jesus says, "for this reason" he connects the idea that Pilate was under someone else's authority himself with the idea that the man who turned him over to him was not under such authority.

The man who turned him over was not doing so because he was just "following orders of a higher command".
jesus was pointing out that while Pilate was just attempting to do his *** as best he could under the commands and authority of Rome, the man who turned him over to pilate to be killed was not.

The man who turned him over was doing so only because he had rejected Jesus...He rejected Jesus and now wanted Jesus killed.

This is the "greater sin" that Jesus speaks of.

So Jesus is not saying that Pilate was free of being guilty of sin.

But Jesus was saying that the sins are not equal, and that there is a degree of sins, and that Pilate's sin is lesser than the sin of the man who turned him over to him.


================================================== =

I believe this is the only correct understanding of this text.


Pilate makes a statement to Jesus, telling Jesus that he(Pilate) has all the authority he needs to set Jesus free, or put him to death.

Jesus responds to this by telling Pilate that Pilate actually has no authority on nhis own, but that he had to be given his authority by someone higher up in the Roman chain of command.

Then Jesus points out that for this reason, (being under the chain of command of Rome) the person who just turned him over to Pilate has a greater amount of sin in this situation.
This is because the person who turned him over to Pilate was not under the Roman chain of command at all....and was not being ordered to turn Jesus over to anyone!

Well, I don't quite know about that. Pilate could no more set Jesus free than I could. It just turned out to be his lot in life the same it was with Pharaoh. Remember God had to harden his heart.

[alanmolstad]

people have free will...

that is why we are judged and found guilty.

[alanmolstad]

Well, I don't quite know about that. Pilate could no more set Jesus free than I could. It just turned out to be his lot in life the same it was with Pharaoh. Remember God had to harden his heart.
if pilate had no way to free jesus...then jesus made an error in agreeing that pilate did have authority....

jesus even points out that pilates authority over jesus came down to him from above....not that there was none.

[alanmolstad]

Well, I don't quite know about that. Pilate could no more set Jesus free than I could. It just turned out to be his lot in life the same it was with Pharaoh. Remember God had to harden his heart.
pharaoh always had his own free will

[Apologette]

Yes, I understand that, but when one preaches a completely sovereign God, who has his hand in every aspect of man and the things that go on here, it's more difficult (IMO) to claim man is totally responsible for his actions....and most especially for his unbelief, as God is the only one that can change that. Even further, that God has actually "predestined" a group of believers and left the rest to their own devices.

Man is responsible for his own unbelief. Someone who chooses to obey Joseph Smith and not Christ will be judged on that choice. No many can come to Christ without the Father drawing him. That is the teaching of Scripture, and nobody will have an excuse.

[RealFakeHair]

pharaoh always had his own free will

No matter how much Pharaoh wanted to release the Jews, God was going to harden his heart. Not must of a choice for Pharaoh after all.

[alanmolstad]

No matter how much Pharaoh wanted to release the Jews, God was going to harden his heart. Not must of a choice for Pharaoh after all.


Try this thought out for size..... if God forced someone to do something evil , then God cant hold them guilty of doing it right?...

So the fact that we have free will eliminates the idea that god will force us to do things against our will....if that were the case then god would be guilty of what we could call, "forced-possession" of a person... (forced-possession as in the movie Exorcist)

So this means that god's plans took into full account the fact that at all times Pharaoh had always free will.

[RealFakeHair]

Try this thought out for size..... if God forced someone to do something evil , then God cant hold them guilty of doing it right?...

So the fact that we have free will eliminates the idea that god will force us to do things against our will....if that were the case then god would be guilty of what we could call, "forced-possession" of a person... (forced-possession as in the movie Exorcist)

So this means that god's plans took into full account the fact that at all times Pharaoh had always free will.
Sometime we just gotta realize, God's ways, are not our ways.

[alanmolstad]

Sometime we just gotta realize, God's ways, are not our ways.whatever....

My point is that God never took away the free will of us....He does not need to do that just to perform in this world his will....

[Apologette]

whatever....

My point is that God never took away the free will of us....He does not need to do that just to perform in this world his will....
However, before we are saved we have NO free will, because we are dead in our tressp***es and sins, and in bondage to Satan.

[alanmolstad]

However, before we are saved we have NO free will, because we are dead in our tressp***es and sins, and in bondage to Satan.
the human free will was not affected

[alanmolstad]

the human free will was not affected


Possessed people are not held accountable...
If a person stands condemned, it is only because they are guilty ....
If they are guilty it is only because they had a true choice....


If you had no choice, if you were forced/coerced into breaking a law against your will, then you are innocent.

If you simply did not know any better, (a child or handicapped), then your sins are overlooked.

[Libby]

However, before we are saved we have NO free will, because we are dead in our tressp***es and sins, and in bondage to Satan.

See, though....that is exactly what I'm talking about. If we have no free will (we are only free to sin) and we can only become believers, if God draws us and changes our heart...how could one possibly be responsible for not believing? It just doesn't make sense.

[alanmolstad]

See, though....that is exactly what I'm talking about. If we have no free will (we are only free to sin) and we can only become believers, if God draws us and changes our heart...how could one possibly be responsible for not believing? It just doesn't make sense.


I guess I should explain it then......

but first....got to make a beer run to the fridge!

[Libby]

We might both need a drink for this one. ;-)

[RealFakeHair]

See, though....that is exactly what I'm talking about. If we have no free will (we are only free to sin) and we can only become believers, if God draws us and changes our heart...how could one possibly be responsible for not believing? It just doesn't make sense.

That is the catch 22 we'er in. I just leave it in God's hands. It will all make sense to us one day, just not today.
Remember God knows who is the believer before the believer even knows. However we know not so it is up to us to tell the Good news, and let God do the rest.

[Libby]

That is the catch 22 we'er in. I just leave it in God's hands. It will all make sense to us one day, just not today.
Remember God knows who is the believer before the believer even knows. However we know not so it is up to us to tell the Good news, and let God do the rest.

Well, to take Calvinist interpretation of scripture one step further, God doesn't just "know"....He chooses.

[alanmolstad]

Well, to take Calvinist interpretation of scripture one step further, God doesn't just "know"....He chooses.
God.....is God.

he is what he is....he is God.

we are humans....we have free will.
The free will we have gives us the ability to love and be loved.
The free will we have gives us the ability to do what we want, but it also means we are alone responsible for what we do.

No one believes a stone is guilty of a sin....

No one believes a chair is guilty of a sin.
But people are guilty, and the reason is freedom of choice.
We choose.....

We choose to do good, we choose to do bad...
Sometimes we choose to do really good things...that work out great for us.

other times?.....not so much.


But what about God?


God is God.
God is not like us at all....he is not stumped by our free will.....God is not like us in any way , shape, or form...
God does not think like us, he does not come to our conclusions, he is not limited by the problems that stump us completely.

So.....what does this mean?
It means.......(and here is the important part)......it means that God is able to perform his will completely..while never needing to first take away human free will.




UNDERSTAND THAT?.........me neither.

But thats how it works.

[Libby]

UNDERSTAND THAT?.........me neither.

lol...nope, I do not understand. And, believe me, I've had this conversation with MANY people, including the Pastor of my church.

[Libby]

What I got from my Pastor is that, at some point, we have to stop worrying about what we don't understand and just dwell in faith. I do ask God to help me do that. You'd think it would be easy, but it hasn't been for me.

[alanmolstad]

Libby,,,the beers kicking in, so watch and wonder as the pearls of wisdom flow forth from my hands...

Another way to look at this question?......



Libby, we are human, we experience one moment after another.
so we dont know the future at all.....the page of the future is always hidden....


thats how we look at life....like its a book that we are reading.
The p***ing of time is like the turning of a page of the book.




BUT, thats not how God looks at the creation.


how does God look at creation?



I dont know for sure.


But in a small way, its kinda like how we look at a painting.

a painting has no start, no finish, no half-way point...

a painting is all it is, all at once.




So how does this relate to human free will and God's sovereignty?

Its important to it..

We try to understand God as if he was trapped in the book of time, where one thing follows another and we are not sure how it ends.
But God looks at the beginning and the ending and the middle and all points in between with the same clarity.

So while we struggle with our freewill, God just smiles...


Yes, we have free will and can do whatever we want...but only because in the totally finished painting of creation that God is looking at, we were painted with such by the Master.

[alanmolstad]

Libby, when i die, i want you to include the above post of mine in the book that gets turned into the movie...ok?

[alanmolstad]

lol...nope, I do not understand......and that......is......the beginning of wisdom.

[James Banta]

......

Saint Paul gives us a good example of what you are saying...

I quote :
"Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. "

Were not the words of Paul pointed at believers? Were not the words I quoted from aimed at the lost? The context is totally different.. Maybe you see that pandering to the lost and soft peddling their uniquely blasphemous doctrines especially those concerning who and what God is.. That is a subject that doesn't separate us Alan. I have seen that that doctrines does separate Christianity from Libby.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Thanks, Alan.

I've put James on ignore. Quite peaceful, that way. :)

Strange you stayed here and continued to post because I was so glad that you said you were leaving.. You remained here because I said YEAH to your promise to leave.. You saw my correction of a woman that says she is a Christian a child of God as personal attacks on you.. You are also wrong about that.. It's just strange that you stayed because of my desire to see you leave and then you put me on ignore.. Ironic!!!

I will continue to make those comments as you keep posting error.. I wouldn't want anyone to be confused by any unbiblical comments you may make.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Strange you stayed here and continued to post .......
I thank God for her....


as for what is "strange"?...

[Libby]

Libby,,,the beers kicking in, so watch and wonder as the pearls of wisdom flow forth from my hands...

Another way to look at this question?......



Libby, we are human, we experience one moment after another.
so we dont know the future at all.....the page of the future is always hidden....


thats how we look at life....like its a book that we are reading.
The p***ing of time is like the turning of a page of the book.




BUT, thats not how God looks at the creation.


how does God look at creation?



I dont know for sure.


But in a small way, its kinda like how we look at a painting.

a painting has no start, no finish, no half-way point...

a painting is all it is, all at once.




So how does this relate to human free will and God's sovereignty?

Its important to it..

We try to understand God as if he was trapped in the book of time, where one thing follows another and we are not sure how it ends.
But God looks at the beginning and the ending and the middle and all points in between with the same clarity.

So while we struggle with our freewill, God just smiles...


Yes, we have free will and can do whatever we want...but only because in the totally finished painting of creation that God is looking at, we were painted with such by the Master.

Seriously good post, Alan...will definitely make a great movie! :)

I agree that the time/space thing plays into why we humans can't quite grasp all that God fully understands (because He has the bigger picture). I did know that, but I appreciate the reminder. It's too easy to get caught up in "logical" arguments, that are really only logical from our human perspective.

Good points. Thank you, much!

[Libby]

and that......is......the beginning of wisdom.

That is so true. The older I get, the less I seem to "know" for sure. I do think that is a kind of wisdom, to finally realize that, not only do you not know everything, but some things are just not knowable from our puny human perspective (just as you have pointed out).

[Libby]

I thank God for her....

as for what is "strange"?...

Appreciate your words here, as well.

[alanmolstad]

it needs a tune....







God.....is God.

he is what he is....he is God.

we are humans....we have free will.
The free will we have gives us the ability to love and be loved.
The free will we have gives us the ability to do what we want, but it also means we are alone responsible for what we do.

No one believes a stone is guilty of a sin....

No one believes a chair is guilty of a sin.
But people are guilty, and the reason is freedom of choice.
We choose.....

We choose to do good, we choose to do bad...
Sometimes we choose to do really good things...that work out great for us.

other times?.....not so much.


But what about God?


God is God.
God is not like us at all....he is not stumped by our free will.....God is not like us in any way , shape, or form...
God does not think like us, he does not come to our conclusions, he is not limited by the problems that stump us completely.

So.....what does this mean?
It means.......(and here is the important part)......it means that God is able to perform his will completely..while never needing to first take away human free will.




UNDERSTAND THAT?.........me neither.

But thats how it works.

[James Banta]

it needs a tune....

Try "Turkey and the Straw" It works with just about anything.. IHS jim

[Libby]

God is not like us in any way , shape, or form...

Not to nitpick (because that was a good post), but I did want to add that I think we are like God, in some ways. He even said that he made us in his image. I don't think he meant "physical image", but rather in his spiritual image. We have a spirit like his, and intelligence and the ability to know good from evil. Without that ability, we could not be held accountable.

[James Banta]

Not to nitpick (because that was a good post), but I did want to add that I think we are like God, in some ways. He even said that he made us in his image. I don't think he meant "physical image", but rather in his spiritual image. We have a spirit like his, and intelligence and the ability to know good from evil. Without that ability, we could not be held accountable.

All of our being is in His image.. He (God) is triune, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. We are triune Mind, Body, and Spirit. In that way we are in His image.. Other than that we share some attributes, like you have inferred. We have the ability to know good from evil. We can love, we can be angry. And like God we can't go against our base nature.. The heart (that is our base nature) is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.. Left to ourselves that is what we are.. To be more than that we must be born of God from above.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

there is nothing in this creation that you can point to and say...."Just like God".....


“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

In my posts I am pointing to the point of view of God compared to the point of view on men.

So its this point of view, or the ways we think that are so different, and that is the aim of my posts that are dealing with Calvinism,,,,as Calvinism is also a way of thinking and a point of view...

[James Banta]

there is nothing in this creation that you can point to and say...."Just like God".....


“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

In my posts I am pointing to the point of view of God compared to the point of view on men.

So its this point of view, or the ways we think that are so different, and that is the aim of my posts that are dealing with Calvinism,,,,as Calvinism is also a way of thinking and a point of view...

That is true all we have here is symbolism.. Our triune nature of Body, Mind and Spirit is symbolic of His triune of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He created us with that nature to reflect Himself in us.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

Not to nitpick (because that was a good post), but I did want to add that I think we are like God, in some ways. He even said that he made us in his image. I don't think he meant "physical image", but rather in his spiritual image. We have a spirit like his, and intelligence and the ability to know good from evil. Without that ability, we could not be held accountable.
We are like God spiritually, but the Fall didn't just mar our likeness, but destroyed it. We are totally dead in our spirit nature until we are regenerated (given new life) by the Holy Spirit through faith in the Blood of Christ.

[Libby]

there is nothing in this creation that you can point to and say...."Just like God".....


“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

In my posts I am pointing to the point of view of God compared to the point of view on men.

So its this point of view, or the ways we think that are so different, and that is the aim of my posts that are dealing with Calvinism,,,,as Calvinism is also a way of thinking and a point of view...

Yes. Since none of us can know the entirety of God, then I'm sure we all miss the mark, in some ways.

[Billyray]

Well, to take Calvinist interpretation of scripture one step further, God doesn't just "know"....He chooses.
God elects some but not all. What issue do you have with this exactly?

[Libby]

God elects some but not all. What issue do you have with this exactly?

It's not fair...and I do believe God is "just".

[Billyray]

It's not fair...and I do believe God is "just".
What is the basis for saying that it is not fair?

[RealFakeHair]

It's not fair...and I do believe God is "just".

I tell you what is not fair, me looking more like Mick Jagger, and not like Tom Cruise.

[James Banta]

Yes. Since none of us can know the entirety of God, then I'm sure we all miss the mark, in some ways.

But we MUST accept all God has revealed about Himself in the Bible.. We Must believe primarily that He is One Lord.. We must believe that the Father is Gos. that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God.. We must believe that he is Spirit and that Jesus is the tangible image of the invisible God.. But denying what He has told us about Himself is clear evidence that there is no faith in Him at all..

Remember
Heb 11:7
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

To deny what He has told us of Himself in His word is to deny that He is there at all.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

It's not fair...and I do believe God is "just".
If men had no free will, then you would be correct...it would be so unfair that no one would even bother to worship a god like that....

But free will is never removed by the lord in order for Him to save us....we have it and it is why we are the things we are and not robots.

[Libby]

If men had no free will, then you would be correct...it would be so unfair that no one would even bother to worship a god like that....

But free will is never removed by the lord in order for Him to save us....we have it and it is why we are the things we are and not robots.

I agree with you, Alan, but that is not what Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches that the only "free will" we have is the freedom to sin (as Catherine stated, above). That we are so degenerate that we cannot possibly choose God or good. Only God's regenerative/renewing power can make us truly free to choose Him. But, the kicker here (and the part that is disturbing to many, not just me) is that, supposedly, God only chooses and draws "some". Not just people he knows will choose Him, because, remember, that we haven't the will to choose him, until he chooses us. So, it is completely his sovereign wish and desire to only choose "some". Those few will, then, choose Him. That is Calvinism. Total Depravity and Limited or Particular Atonement (Christ only died for those God chose before the beginning of the world)..

[Libby]

So, I am not really saying that God is unfair, because I don't believe he is. God is just and we are free to choose him. I believe he draws all of us, not just "some".

It's really the TULIP system of belief that I reject.


it would be so unfair that no one would even bother to worship a god like that....

You would think, right? But, people do worship a God, exactly like that.

[Billyray]

God elects some but not all. What issue do you have with this exactly?

It's not fair...and I do believe God is "just".

So, I am not really saying that God is unfair, because I don't believe he is. God is just and we are free to choose him. I believe he draws all of us, not just "some".

It's really the TULIP system of belief that I reject.

You said that God is not fair (from the Calvinist POV). What is the basis for your ***essment?

[Billyray]

I believe he draws all of us, not just "some".

If I were to make up a religion based on my own ideas I would probably agree with you Libby. The problem is that truth is not based on what you or I think or "feel" (as BigJ says all the time) but rather what God says.

John 6
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.


Can you tell me what these verses mean to you?

[Libby]

If I were to make up a religion based on my own ideas I would probably agree with you Libby. The problem is that truth is not based on what you or I think or "feel" (as BigJ says all the time) but rather what God says.

John 6
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.


Can you tell me what these verses mean to you?

What does it mean to you? I don't see any limitations in those verses.

[Billyray]

What does it mean to you? I don't see any limitations in those verses.

John 6
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.


ALL those the Father gives me (Jesus) will come to me

[James Banta]

John 6
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.


ALL those the Father gives me (Jesus) will come to me

She (Libby) claims to be a believer while doing so she disbelieves the teaching God gave us in His word. She would rather believe the LIES of mormonism that teaches we are saved by grace but only after all we can do.. ALL WE CAN DO.. But the Bible is clear that only those that the FATHER HAS GIVEN to Jesus we be raised up to life of the last day.. Why can't she just believe? I don't know I have to work with Never Ending for months on a few points of grace.. I praise God that she is now as even a more solid believer than I am.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

What is the basis for saying that it is not fair?

If God was only just we'd all be sent directly to hell! So tell us, are you still into the Hinduism thing -you know, the one where everything is a big dream?

[Apologette]

I agree with you, Alan, but that is not what Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches that the only "free will" we have is the freedom to sin (as Catherine stated, above). That we are so degenerate that we cannot possibly choose God or good. Only God's regenerative/renewing power can make us truly free to choose Him. But, the kicker here (and the part that is disturbing to many, not just me) is that, supposedly, God only chooses and draws "some". Not just people he knows will choose Him, because, remember, that we haven't the will to choose him, until he chooses us. So, it is completely his sovereign wish and desire to only choose "some". Those few will, then, choose Him. That is Calvinism. Total Depravity and Limited or Particular Atonement (Christ only died for those God chose before the beginning of the world)..
Since when is this the Calvinism forum?

[Libby]

John 6
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.


ALL those the Father gives me (Jesus) will come to me

Yes? ...........

[Libby]

Since when is this the Calvinism forum?

If I'm not mistaken, you have contributed to this discussion, yourself. And Alan and Billy.

[Apologette]

Yes? ...........

So, you answer "yes?" Isn't that slightly evasive? What do you think that verse means?

[Libby]

So, you answer "yes?" Isn't that slightly evasive? What do you think that verse means?

Not at all. Billy didn't say anything about it at all. My "yes" is an agreement and a question as to what he believes about these verses. What is HE getting out of it? I believe it means what it says. What it doesn't say is that God chooses only a few.

[Billyray]

John 6
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.


ALL those the Father gives me (Jesus) will come to me

Yes? ...........
So you agree with the Calvinist position on this? Is that what you are saying?

[Libby]

So you agree with the Calvinist position on this? Is that what you are saying?


?? No, I believe I said just the opposite.

Why don't you explain to me what those verses mean to you (from your "Calvinist" position)? And, why you believe it's the proper interpretation.

[Apologette]

Not at all. Billy didn't say anything about it at all. My "yes" is an agreement and a question as to what he believes about these verses. What is HE getting out of it? I believe it means what it says. What it doesn't say is that God chooses only a few.

Isn't it clear that only those drawn by the Father come to Christ? What's the question?

[Libby]

My objection to the Calvinist view (one of them, anyway) was stated in this post.

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3366-My-daughter-came-into-town-yesterday&p=155108&viewfull=1#post155108

[alanmolstad]

Isn't it clear that only those drawn by the Father come to Christ? What's the question?

I see that word "only" popping up a lot with this issue....

I need to do some research on the verses that use that word in connection with this topic...

Where do you guys get it from again?

[alanmolstad]

I agree with you, Alan, but that is not what Calvinism teaches. ..and is why Calvinism has problems....and why Walter Martin did not believe in all of their teachings...

[Billyray]

?? No, I believe I said just the opposite.

No you didn't say "just the opposite" rather it appeared that you agreed with what I said.



John 6
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

ALL those the Father gives me (Jesus) will come to me

You said that you agreed with this statement. If ALL that the Father gives to Christ come to Him then this could not be speaking about every single person but rather a subset of the population because we both know that every single person will not come to Christ.

So can you explain these verses or at least tell me if you agree with what I said OR if you disagree can you give me your reasoning?

[alanmolstad]

so.....you guys teach an idea something like...."God does not call all men"?


is that what Im seeing talked about here?
Because it sure looks to me like that is what you guys are talking about....

I think you need to back-up and make your views a bit more clear so people will not get the wrong idea about what you wanted to say....

[Billyray]

and is why Calvinism has problems...
Alan I am interested in hearing what "problems" you are speaking about exactly--perhaps we could look at the scriptures and resolve some of the issues that you are having with this subject.

[alanmolstad]

..... God only chooses and draws "some". ......
I was not following this topic that close, but I have noticed today that there clearly is an idea that "God does not call all" being promoted by someone...

Where do they get this idea?...I would like to do some research on this idea but Im not sure how to even GOOGLE it?

The word "only" pops up a lot too...and I would like to learn more about where in the Bible that word appears in this context?

[alanmolstad]

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/waltermartindotcom/2013/04/21/the-mystery-of-predestination


why Calvinism is Wrong!

[Billyray]

I was not following this topic that close, but I have noticed today that there clearly is an idea that "God does not call all" being promoted by someone...

Where do they get this idea?..
The Bible. You must have me on ignore still because I gave a section of scripture just a few posts back that discusses this very issue. Here it is again.


John 6
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.


ALL those the Father gives me (Jesus) will come to me

[Libby]

The Bible. You must have me on ignore still because I gave a section of scripture just a few posts back that discusses this very issue. Here it is again.

Billy, these verses say nothing about God drawing only "some". You are reading that in.

[Libby]

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/waltermartindotcom/2013/04/21/the-mystery-of-predestination


why Calvinism is Wrong!

Making good use of that link, already, I see. :)

[alanmolstad]

Making good use of that link, already, I see. :)

its bookmarked!

chances are that whenever this topic comes up Im just going to post this link and be done with it........saves time and people can learn the truth as to why Calvinism is wrong if they ever have any doubts about what Im saying.

[alanmolstad]

Libby......
It was interesting listening to Walter teach on why Calvinism is in error and notice how closely Walter was to my own views!... ...

I had never really heard Walter talk this much on the topic on his show and I have yet to find any stuff on Youtube where he deals with this.

It was refreshing to learn my memories of Walter's radio shows were supported with such facts.

[alanmolstad]

still would like to know where people get this word " some" ?

And where is this verse that teaches that God does not call "some" men found?.... i wish to study that...


The reason this is a big deal to me is that I do not remember such a teaching in the Bible at all?
most of the time i can remember a odd verse or two to a topic, but this idea that the Bible makes use of the word "some" when talking about the calling of God is news to me.


I dont have any idea about where this idea came from and where it is found in the Bible?
You got to have a verse right?.....something that teaches clearly that "God does not call some men"


I just dont see where that idea is from, all I see is the use of the word "All" whenever the Bible talks about the calling of men.
Every verse i run into when i google this topic always seems to have the word "all" in it.

I went down the list of verses i was given in my search and it was "all......."
"all....."
"all...."

I sure did not see the word "some"? in any of the verses I was given to look at in my searches...

[alanmolstad]

Libby.....

Im on my computer now so i can say a few more things on this topic:

Libby it was fun to listen to Walter take apart the idea that some into Calvinism have that > "God used his foreknowledge to see who enters heaven, and theses are the people that he called"

I have run into this same type of answer from time to time and i always felt that this answer made God look weak.
Like God is just the same as a kid who cheats on a test by looking up the answers in the back of the book.




also Libby,
There are some who think that the only reason some people end up in Hell is that God did not call them.
They believe that had god called them, they would have went to heaven.

But this is nuts!

It takes the blame for a person going to hell and transfers it totally onto god, rather onto the person themselves.
The whole idea of the bible is that the people that go to Hell have ended up there because "THEY" rejected the calling of god.
You cant just invent a new reason like "God did not call them" and end up dumping the whole rest of the bible and church history in favor of it!




I also like how Walter takes apart the argument that there was "something about us" that made the difference and explains why we were called by God.

This argument is also 'nuts'!

We are sinners!....there is nothing different at all.

[alanmolstad]

Billy, these verses say nothing about God drawing only "some". You are reading that in.

I think that has to be the case.
From what i have seen, there is clearly no support for this word 'some' that people are using, and so that tells me that they are just adding it to the text because it supports their views.

Unless they got a verse or two that do make use of the word?.....I would like to see it because in my search on this topic I find plenty of use of the word "all' but so far I cant find any use of the word 'some"

?????



If they dont have any such verse to support their views?...well in that case I think its funny how they can look at a verse that clearly makes use of the word "all" and is clearly teaching something that is clearly supported by the use of the word "all", and flip things around/screw things up , in their heads to actually make the verse say, "some"


its like they read "all" and think, "some".......

[Billyray]

Billy, these verses say nothing about God drawing only "some". You are reading that in.
John 6
37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.


If you feel that I am wrong then tell me what these verses are saying.

In verse 37 do you believe that the Father gives every single person to the Son?

[alanmolstad]

its like......

its like the people that are adding the word "some" to the text where it clearly is not found are like the people that say, "God is not on mars because in Genesis it clearly says that "The spirit of God hovered over the WATERS!, and as there is no water on mars this verse is teaching that god cant be on mars!"


they are guilty of taking a verse out of context and twisting it around to say something it is not saying at all....


They take a verse that clearly making use of the word "all" and changing it so to them it reads..."a few, some, not many"

to them, "all = some"


Why do they do this?.....they feel the need to do this.

They base their need to change the total meaning of a verse because they think that without doing so their own personal logic ends up with their god painted into a corner.


Well....as Walter martin points out in the link I posted......human logic is not able to understand God's way of thinking.



I look at this way they need to change what a verse is teaching so that it agrees with their own personal ideas about what it "should have said', :confused:and just shake my head.....





here now is what you have to know on this topic-

Calvinism is dead wrong.

here is what is correct -
Man has free will, and God is sovereign


think this is a logical contradiction?....too bad, get over it.

[James Banta]

I thank God for her....


as for what is "strange"?...


It is strange that she stayed because of me and then can't deal with me so she put me on ignore.. That is her choice.. It doesn't change the FACT that she panders to the LDS at every opportunity..

I disagree with you a lot Alan but you are honest in your opinions and hold then in the authority of Scripture.. I don't much like it when the authority of a comes from them saying "I believe" and only that statement without or even against scriptural authority.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

and.......as I was saying........Calvinism is wrong.

[James Banta]

and.......as I was saying........Calvinism is wrong.

In what way? I just said you always have had scriptural grounds to hold your beliefs. I disagree.. Calvinism can be supported scriptural, All 5 points.. So show me why it is so wrong. Is it because mormonism says so? Is it because Armenians still to agree with it as it core? What are you issues with it? IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

In what way? I just said you always have had scriptural grounds to hold your beliefs. I disagree.. Calvinism can be supported scriptural, All 5 points.. So show me why it is so wrong. Is it because mormonism says so? Is it because Armenians still to agree with it as it core? What are you issues with it? IHS jim

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/waltermartindotcom/2013/04/21/the-mystery-of-predestination

[alanmolstad]

In what way?.... Is it because Mormonism says so? ......


http://www.blogtalkradio.com/walterm...predestination
(start listening at the 6:15 point of the recording to learn where calvin went wrong)


I really don't care what the Mormons support or what they disagree with.
So the Mormons can "say so" to all kinds of things.....but who really cares?

i dont decide questions based on the agreement or the disagreement with any of the many false religions in this world.

[alanmolstad]

.....Is it because Armenians still to agree with it as it core? ....

Im not sure about this question as I do believe that Armenian teachings are just as wrong as Calvinism....so to answer this question I might say, "perhaps"?

[alanmolstad]

..... What are you issues with it? IHS jim

Mostly the error of Calvinism is the way it works so hard as a teaching to get rid of the concept of "human free will"

People that believe in Calvinism hate the idea of free will....they don't even like to say the words "Free Will"

Calvinists seem to have this need to get rid of the idea of human free will because they are under the impression that God is so weak that if we have "free will" god becomes helpless to save us.

So in order to prop-up their weakened idea of God, they take away the Free Will of men.

So not only do Calvinists have the wrong idea about man, they also have a weak understanding of God


But my thoughts are that unless you believe in human free will you dont understand the Christian faith.
But once you see how this works, you understand how both Calvinism and Armenians were unable to solve the mystery .


To learn how human Free Will works with God's control of His universe, listen at the 21:00 point of this recording where Walter explains how it works - http://www.blogtalkradio.com/walterm...predestination



I think I have written a few times on this forum how this question about man's free will and god's sovereignty came up while i was in Bible school.
Im my study of this question I reviewed all the arguments that people use to support their views.

I had to read the literature that both of the different schools of thought put out for their own supporters to read.
I went over all the Bible verses that people use to support their own little side of the debate.

(and this was back in the day before the internet and search engines)

My conclusion back in Bible School is still the same conclusion I have to this very day.
Im also pleased to learn that Walter Martin also came to the same conclusion that I came to.
That conclusion is that you dont need to automatically agree to all that Calvin taught, just because you believe he was correct on a few issues....

Nor do you automatically need to agree with Calvin just because you disagree with Armenianism on a few issues.

These two teachings, (Calvinism and Armenianism) did not fall from heaven.
Some guys dreamed them up!
They dreamed them up based only on their own flawed human logic!

And there is no need at all to feel you have to pick one side or the other as being the "winner".

Both were wrong!
Both fail to grasp the truth.


The truth is that man has free will......and that God is sovereign.,

[Apologette]

Libby......
It was interesting listening to Walter teach on why Calvinism is in error and notice how closely Walter was to my own views!... ...

I had never really heard Walter talk this much on the topic on his show and I have yet to find any stuff on Youtube where he deals with this.

It was refreshing to learn my memories of Walter's radio shows were supported with such facts.

I knew both Walter Martin, and Walter Bjorck, who was my Bible teacher. Mr. Bjorck was certainly a five-point Calvinist, and worked fro CRI. I don't recall Dr. Martin ever renouncing Reformed beliefs at all.

[alanmolstad]

I knew both Walter Martin, and Walter Bjorck, who was my Bible teacher. Mr. Bjorck was certainly a five-point Calvinist, and worked fro CRI. I don't recall Dr. Martin ever renouncing Reformed beliefs at all.

I used to have a nice little recording of Walter going over the 5-points of calvinism and talking about where they might be correct, or where they were in error.

But the link was taken off the internet, so i will have to keep searching for a new site where the recording is saved.

[James Banta]

Mostly the error of Calvinism is the way it works so hard as a teaching to get rid of the concept of "human free will"

People that believe in Calvinism hate the idea of free will....they don't even like to say the words "Free Will"

Calvinists seem to have this need to get rid of the idea of human free will because they are under the impression that God is so weak that if we have "free will" god becomes helpless to save us.

So in order to prop-up their weakened idea of God, they take away the Free Will of men.

So not only do Calvinists have the wrong idea about man, they also have a weak understanding of God


But my thoughts are that unless you believe in human free will you dont understand the Christian faith.
But once you see how this works, you understand how both Calvinism and Armenians were unable to solve the mystery .


To learn how human Free Will works with God's control of His universe, listen at the 21:00 point of this recording where Walter explains how it works - http://www.blogtalkradio.com/walterm...HALLELJAHation (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/walterm...predestination)



I think I have written a few times on this forum how this question about man's free will and god's sovereignty came up while i was in Bible school.
Im my study of this question I reviewed all the arguments that people use to support their views.

I had to read the literature that both of the different schools of thought put out for their own supporters to read.
I went over all the Bible verses that people use to support their own little side of the debate.

(and this was back in the day before the internet and search engines)

My conclusion back in Bible School is still the same conclusion I have to this very day.
Im also pleased to learn that Walter Martin also came to the same conclusion that I came to.
That conclusion is that you dont need to automatically agree to all that Calvin taught, just because you believe he was correct on a few issues....

Nor do you automatically need to agree with Calvin just because you disagree with Armenianism on a few issues.

These two teachings, (Calvinism and Armenianism) did not fall from heaven.
Some guys dreamed them up!
They dreamed them up based only on their own flawed human logic!

And there is no need at all to feel you have to pick one side or the other as being the "winner".

Both were wrong!
Both fail to grasp the truth.


The truth is that man has free will......and that God is sovereign.,

Two problems
1. WM never disagreed with the Bible and the Bible clearly teaches that we are predestined Even in the CJB we see this "those whom he knew in advance, he also determined in advance would be conformed to the pattern of his Son". What does it mean to know what someone will do in advance? Predestine!

2. The other thing is this IS the mormonism channel.. lets get back to that and stop worrying about Calvinism.. Can a person be saved and be a believing Calvinist? YES! Can a person be a believing LDS and be saved, NO WAY! Stop worrying about side issues you and I will never agree on and lets get back to showing Jesus to the lost.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

I used to have a nice little recording of Walter going over the 5-points of calvinism and talking about where they might be correct, or where they were in error.

But the link was taken off the internet, so i will have to keep searching for a new site where the recording is saved.

Aren't you a product of Campbellism? They are heretical, believing only baptism by their "elders" is valid, and that that is where you "meet the Blood." That's a hop skip and a jump from Mormonism, and in fact, Campbellism formed the theological root of Mormonism.

[alanmolstad]

Two problems
1. WM never disagreed with the Bible and the Bible clearly teaches that we are predestined Even in the CJB we see this "those whom he knew in advance, he also determined in advance would be conformed to the pattern of his Son". What does it mean to know what someone will do in advance? Predestine!

if you were to listen to the recording, you would not need to ask questions that Walter martin talks about in great detail.......

Do you really think I have ever for one moment said that there is no predestined text?.....

[alanmolstad]

Aren't you a product of Campbellism? .......
what does soup got to do with this?

[Apologette]

what does soup got to do with this?

You obviously have been influenced by your background. Campbellites have a notorious hatred for Reformed theology. Look at Rigdon - he was a Campbellite minister. Mormonism, which is notroiously anti-Reformed, is a product of that thinking.

[alanmolstad]

You obviously have been influenced by your background.
Yes, mostly by Walter Martin....and that is why I found this website we are both on right now.

I have not really found a place where Martin and i disagree....Now I dont know everything that Walter taught, but on the issues that have come up and I have checked out what he taught I have yet to see much difference in what Walter taught and what I believe..

[alanmolstad]

Aren't you a product of Campbellism? .Do you just make this stuff up, or is there some type of post that leads you to such conclusions?

[John T]

Mostly the error of Calvinism is the way it works so hard as a teaching to get rid of the concept of "human free will"

That is certainly a false representation of Calvinism, Alan. The MAJOR tenet of Calvinism is that God is totally sovereign over EVERYTHING. From that premise comes the TULIP. However it must be noted that the sovereignty of God could always and easily trump the free will of humanity, in His sovereign decree, God permitted human free will so that they could face the consequences of their free will decision to reject the grace of God, which leads them unto salvation.

Therefore, while Hell is a place originally designed to punish disobedient angels, humans also choose to have share in the punishment of all disobedient beings eternally.




People that believe in Calvinism hate the idea of free will....they don't even like to say the words "Free Will"
<SNIP>

Since you are insisting on a "comic book book definition" of Calvinism, I will merely state that you began on the wrong foot, and you also ended on that same, wrong foot.




The truth is that man has free will......and that God is sovereign.,

Then you MUST be a Calvinist, Alan! :p

[Libby]

The real crux of the problem with Calvinism is the claim that man is so depraved that he is not even able, of his own "free will", to choose God. If man doesn't have the ability or inclination to choose God, of his own free will, then he doesn't really have free will...and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for NOT choosing God.

[Phoenix]

The real crux of the problem with Calvinism is the claim that man is so depraved that he is not even able, of his own "free will", to choose God. If man doesn't have the ability or inclination to choose God, of his own free will, then he doesn't really have free will...and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for NOT choosing God.

That is the logical conclusion to make, in my opinion. Well done.

[Libby]

That is the logical conclusion to make, in my opinion. Well done.

Thank you, again, Phoenix. Most Christians would say the same. In the scope of the whole of Christianity, Calvinists are a very small group. There does seem to be a lot of them on the internet, but they are very over-represented, when compared to the whole.

[Billyray]

The real crux of the problem with Calvinism is the claim that man is so depraved that he is not even able, of his own "free will", to choose God. If man doesn't have the ability or inclination to choose God, of his own free will, then he doesn't really have free will...and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for NOT choosing God.
Can you give me your definition of "free will" as it pertains to your post above?

[Billyray]

The real crux of the problem with Calvinism is the claim that man is so depraved that he is not even able, of his own "free will", to choose God. If man doesn't have the ability or inclination to choose God, of his own free will, then he doesn't really have free will...and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for NOT choosing God.
From the Calvinist point of view:

1. Does man make a choice to either accept or reject Christ?

2. Is man responsible for the choices that he makes?

[alanmolstad]

The real crux of the problem with Calvinism is the claim that man is so depraved that he is not even able, of his own "free will", to choose God. If man doesn't have the ability or inclination to choose God, of his own free will, then he doesn't really have free will...and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for NOT choosing God.
You are correct.
In the Walter Martin recording you can listen to Walter rip into this false idea found in Calvinism.

The Bible is very clearly teaching that man has a very real Free Will, and that we are given a very real choice.
The choice we are given has very real consequences.
It's not a fake choice.
The choice is not pretend.
The choice is very real....and very important.


If the choice we are given via our Free will was not real?.....then we would be not held guilty of any sins in our lives at all!
We would be just as guilty of sin as a tree, or a rock.
We would be unable to love....unable to repent.....unable to respond to the message of hope in the Bible.

If man had no free Will, then Jesus was a nut-case.....for he time after time teaches that man had a real choice.

Jesus uses the term "would not" when crying over a cities lack of turning to him,,,,not "could not"
If the people within the city actually had no Free Will, then they clearly would be unable to ever repent and turn to god on their own, and therefore the correct term for Jesus to have used would be "could not"

but the fact that Jesus said "would not" proves 100% that men have Free Will.....Case-Closed!

Calvinism is Wrong!

[alanmolstad]

Calvinism does not like to even say the term "Free Will"

The teachers of Calvinism will try all kinds of ways to get out of saying the term.
They hate the idea , they hate the responsibility that comes with the term "Free Will", so they work hard to change the meaning of the term.

They will twist the term to mean what they want it to mean, and then try to get others to replace the term with other terms that they feel more comfortable with.

My answer to the Calvinist is "Man has Free Will, so get over it"

[alanmolstad]

Then you MUST be a Calvinist, Alan! :p

Im simply quoting and working within the teachings of Walter Martin as I remember and as supported in the recording of him that I have listed.

Walter Martin is very clear where calvin was "wrong"
You can listen to the recording for your self....just click to the 6:00 point of the recording if you are in a hurry.

So Im not a Calvinist at all, as I consider Calvinism to be in error.

[alanmolstad]

That is certainly a false representation of Calvinism, Alan.

Go listen to Walter Martin teach about the error of Calvinism, and then see if I have misunderstood what Walter Martin was teaching?


I dont think so....

I think I am spot-on.

[James Banta]

Go listen to Walter Martin teach about the error of Calvinism, and then see if I have misunderstood what Walter Martin was teaching?


I dont think so....

I think I am spot-on.

There are a lot of false things said about Calvinism.. As for Dr Martin, he never denied that God is one Lord, that He has been eternally God. That it is He who saves men by His grace through faith in Jesus. That once you are in the hands of Jesus (God) you are always His and NO ONE can take you away from Him.. Or that He takes only those that are given to Him by the Father.. It is clear that Dr Martin believed that the hearts of all men are desperately wicked. That covers most of what Calvinism is..

If your fixation on Calvinism persists we should make this the Calvinism forum and I can be the one defending it against detractors like you and from the mormonism that hates the God that saves, by His grace, those who have faith in the Jesus revealed in the Bible.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

The real crux of the problem with Calvinism is the claim that man is so depraved that he is not even able, of his own "free will", to choose God. If man doesn't have the ability or inclination to choose God, of his own free will, then he doesn't really have free will...and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for NOT choosing God.

Isn't that what the Bible teaches? It teaches us that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Above all things.. ALL THINGS, that would include Satan himself.. Desperately wicked, DESPERATELY,having an urgent need or desire, being desperate for attention. having or holding little or no hope.. Just how is that outside the state of of disagreeing with the state of the lost under Calvinism.. The problem you and the detractors of Calvinism have is that you won't allow the scriptures that support Calvinism to be true. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Do you just make this stuff up, or is there some type of post that leads you to such conclusions?

Sounded like a question to me not an accusation.. Did Apologette somehow misstate an important doctrine of the Campbellite movement? Today this doctrine is held my The Church of Christ.. It is a false teaching that calls the doctrine of salvation by Grace through Faith a lie.. Any doctrine that requires a work we can do, such as baptism, denies salvation by God's grace.. IHS jim

[Libby]

From the Calvinist point of view:

1. Does man make a choice to either accept or reject Christ?

Not unless God draws him and changes his heart. The error in Calvinism is that God only draws a specific few. The Bible says that God wishes for all to come to him, so he must, necessarily, be drawing all people, not just a select few.

1 Timothy 2:3 "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles."


2. Is man responsible for the choices that he makes?

We are responsible, yes, including the decision to accept or reject God's "drawing".

[Libby]

I think many Calvinists think they are being "misrepresented" when they hear how their doctrine sounds in plain words, without all of the juggling and "spin" they use to describe it and try and justify it, themselves. They have favorite phrases, like "God is not obliged to save any of us", so it's supposed to be something "great" that he would bother to save any of us.

They also like to use the scripture about man's heart being deceitful and desperately wicked, to try and prove that it would be beyond a human being's nature to turn to God. I really don't believe that. I know that man is sinfu (very sinful, in some cases)l, but most of us recognize good from evil. We may not always choose good, but we recognize it. That's the only way humans would know to do good, even when they are not "saved".

And, when God draws us, we do have a choice to make...a real choice, not just as a puppet that God "predestined" to love him.

[BigJulie]

I think many Calvinists think they are being "misrepresented" when they hear how their doctrine sounds in plain words, without all of the juggling and "spin" they use to describe it and try and justify it, themselves. They have favorite phrases, like "God is not obliged to save any of us", so it's supposed to be something "great" that he would bother to save any of us.

They also like to use the scripture about man's heart being deceitful and desperately wicked, to try and prove that it would be beyond a human being's nature to turn to God. I really don't believe that. I know that man is sinfu (very sinful, in some cases)l, but most of us recognize good from evil. We may not always choose good, but we recognize it. That's the only way humans would know to do good, even when they are not "saved".

And, when God draws us, we do have a choice to make...a real choice, not just as a puppet that God "predestined" to love him.

Boy Libby, I wish I had a "like" ****on for this post.

[alanmolstad]

....That covers most of what Calvinism is..

I believe that the recording that I gave the link to makes it very clear where Walter Martin felt Calvinism went wrong at.....

[alanmolstad]

Sounded like a question to me not an accusation..

Did Apologette somehow misstate an important doctrine of the Campbellite movement? I dont have the slightest idea.

I never heard of Campbellites and have no connection to groups that are ***ociated with it.
Hence Apologette's introduction of the idea seems a bit weird to me..

[alanmolstad]

I think many Calvinists think they are being "misrepresented" when they hear how their doctrine sounds in plain words, without all of the juggling and "spin" they use to describe it and try and justify it, themselves. ....

I have noticed that as well...

It's also why i suggest Calvinists take a moment and listen to Dr Walter Martin teach on the errors of Calvinism.

Walter speaks with a very clear way of putting things in a very clear light.

Way better than i can...

[alanmolstad]

Boy Libby, I wish I had a "like" ****on for this post.Yes, I agree it's a good one...

[Billyray]

From the Calvinist point of view:

1. Does man make a choice to either accept or reject Christ?


Not unless God draws him and changes his heart.
Only those who are drawn by the Father will come to Christ. But you dodged my question. Does man make a choice to either accept or reject Christ?

[Billyray]

We are responsible, yes, including the decision to accept or reject God's "drawing".
John 6
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

Can you tell me what these verses say and tie it together with your statement above?

[alanmolstad]

I think many Calvinists think they are being "misrepresented"
The Calvinist is also good at misunderstanding their own questions.

They ask me "does man chose God?"
And my answer is "YES!"

But then they turn around and ask "but I thought you said you believed God predestined us?"

They simply are mixed up

They don't understand that if you are asking a question about mankind, then your POV is strictly dealing with the human side of the issue.

In the same way if you ask "do you believe we were predestined by God?"
And I answer "YES!"
They can't then come back with a POV of a human, as in " But I thought you said you believe men choose to believe?"

[alanmolstad]

So it's not just that I think a Calvinist thinks they are misunderstood....it's also that their own questions seem to baffle them

[Billyray]

I think many Calvinists think they are being "misrepresented" when they hear how their doctrine sounds in plain words, without all of the juggling and "spin" they use to describe it and try and justify it, themselves.
But aren't you misrepresenting the doctrine Libby? Let's see if you are.

I asked you two questions in a prior post which are posted again below.


1. Does man make a choice to either accept or reject Christ?

The invitation to accept Christ is offered to all mankind and ANY person who accepts the true Christ will be saved.


2. Is man responsible for the choices that he makes?

Man is responsible for his choices and that includes rejecting Christ.

[alanmolstad]

Jesus cried over the fact that people "would not" come to him

Jesus did not say the people "could not"


This means that the choice given man is real...as real as Gods tears.
And this means that man has free will......

free will is the reason for the tears...
and so Calvinism is wrong

[alanmolstad]

This also means that all men receive the call to come to The Lord.

And that means that men don't go to hell because they were not called....for if that were true men would be off the hook and could not be condemned for failing to listen to a call by god that was actually never made to them,,,,,LOL

[alanmolstad]

But the bible is clear.....men end in hell only because they have rejected the calling by god...

[Libby]

But aren't you misrepresenting the doctrine Libby? Let's see if you are.

No, I am not, but you certainly are...by omission. You leave things out, that you don't really want people to focus on.

Tell me exactly why (you believe) some people "reject Christ"...hmmm?

And, if you can't do that, honestly, I will help you. I have plenty of Calvinist material, plus I have studied Calvinism for years, so don't think you can get away with being dishonest, Billy.

[Libby]

The Calvinist is also good at misunderstanding their own questions.

They ask me "does man chose God?"
And my answer is "YES!"

But then they turn around and ask "but I thought you said you believed God predestined us?"

They simply are mixed up

They don't understand that if you are asking a question about mankind, then your POV is strictly dealing with the human side of the issue.

In the same way if you ask "do you believe we were predestined by God?"
And I answer "YES!"
They can't then come back with a POV of a human, as in " But I thought you said you believe men choose to believe?"

As I said before, they believe that man is too depraved to even have the desire to choose God. It's not so much the "ability" (they will tell you they are "able")...it's just that they believe the nature is so wicked that they will NOT EVER choose God, of their own free will. Not unless God first chooses them, and changes their nature.

[Billyray]

Tell me exactly why (you believe) some people "reject Christ"...hmmm?

Sure I would be happy to tell you what I believe--like I have many times before but you must have forgotten so I will tell you again. Because of their sin nature they don't want anything to do with Christ and they choose to reject Him. Nobody is forcing them to reject Him and if they did accept Christ they would be saved. They have a choice and they choose what they want which is to reject Christ. Yet you have said that these people don't choose to reject Christ which is false AND they would not be responsible for their choice because it was not really a choice--again this is not what Calvinism teaches--yet you state that you know all about the Reformed position. If you know all about it why don't you me and everyone else a favor and at least present it in an honest way. Fair enough. BTW the Reformed position IS taught in the Bible and we can look at verse after verse to support it--in fact why don't we start with the verses in John 6--the ones that you thus far have refused to discuss.

John 6
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

Let's start with verse 37--who are those that the Father gives to the Son?

[Libby]

They have a choice and they choose what they want which is to reject Christ.

You say they have a choice, but what you haven't said, that is also a part of the belief system, is what I said above.

Calvinists believe that man is much too depraved and absolutely corrupted, to choose God. It would not be in their nature to choose Him (or anything good, for that matter). They are self-centered, sinning machines, who could no more choose God than an ant. According to this belief system, they simply do not have the desire.

I have had Calvinists explain and compare our condition/our nature to other animals, on the planet, in that all animals have a particular nature, and even though they may have the ability to do things outside of their nature, there is a hundred percent chance that they will not.. (like a Lion becoming a vegetarian....he has the "ability", but his nature would prevent him from ever even considering such a thing). That is the condition to which Calvinists believe man has become. So, they, can innocently say, "why yes, we believe that man has the free will to choose"....but, what Billy is not saying, is what I reiterated above (twice, now).

Does a man whose nature doesn't allow him to choose God, really have free will?

Of course not.

[Billyray]

We are responsible, yes, including the decision to accept or reject God's "drawing".
From your perspective can anyone come to Christ on their own OR do they need to be drawn by the Father first?

[Libby]

From your perspective can anyone come to Christ on their own OR do they need to be drawn by the Father first?

Drawn by the Father....I already answered this, in one of my above posts. The Father is drawing all of us, all the time.

[Libby]

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

[Billyray]

You say they have a choice. . .

That is exactly what I said. But why did you say that those who rejected Christ did not choose to do so?


Calvinists believe that man is much too depraved and absolutely corrupted, to choose God.

Because of their sin nature they CHOOSE to reject Christ. Again you say that they do not choose to reject Christ and they are not responsible for rejecting Him--but this is not what Calvinism teaches. Those who reject Christ do choose to do so--that is their desire and they are are responsible for this choice. If they did place their faith in Christ they would be saved--but they don't choose to do so.

[Billyray]

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
Absolutely God would like to see everyone saved. So in what way do you feel this verse helps your position. Could you explain that one for me?

[Phoenix]

Jesus cried over the fact that people "would not" come to him
Jesus did not say the people "could not"
This means that the choice given man is real...as real as Gods tears.
And this means that man has free will......
free will is the reason for the tears...
and so Calvinism is wrong

IMO, you made some valid points.

[Phoenix]

Absolutely God would like to see everyone saved. So in what way do you feel this verse helps your position. Could you explain that one for me?

I think maybe I can help you understand how that undermines Calvinism.

Since Calvinism contains the idea that God is absolutely sovereign, doesn't that mean that God always gets what He desires? After all, if someone could sometimes prevent God from getting what He wants, then it means that God is giving some of His sovereignty to someone--God is letting someone get what THEY want.

So if it's true that God wants to see everyone saved, but He's not going to get what He wants, then it logically follows that God isn't absolutely sovereign.

So the terms "God is absolutely sovereign," "God wants to see everyone saved" and the term "Humans have free will" cannot all be true. If the first term is true, then either the second or the third one would be false.

Which means that Calvinism has a fatal flaw.

[RealFakeHair]

I think maybe I can help you understand how that undermines Calvinism.

Since Calvinism contains the idea that God is absolutely sovereign, doesn't that mean that God always gets what He desires? After all, if someone could sometimes prevent God from getting what He wants, then it means that God is giving some of His sovereignty to someone--God is letting someone get what THEY want.

So if it's true that God wants to see everyone saved, but He's not going to get what He wants, then it logically follows that God isn't absolutely sovereign.

So the terms "God is absolutely sovereign," "God wants to see everyone saved" and the term "Humans have free will" cannot all be true. If the first term is true, then either the second or the third one would be false.

Which means that Calvinism has a fatal flaw.

If your mormon god doesn't have absolute sovereignty over all things could it possibly mean there is another god out there that has more or less control over his domain?

[Libby]

Phoenix, that is, basically, my thinking. I would only amend that I do believe God is absolutely sovereign, but he does not, generally, exercise his sovereignty over man, especially, in regards to salvation. He desires that we all come to him and, I believe, he does draw us all...all the time...but, not all are receptive, and even though he is sovereign, he does allow individual agency.

He will not "force" us to come to him, but he will "aid" us, in coming to him, if we ask and desire it.

Calvinists believe that God's people have been chosen (by God) before the foundation of the earth and they had no say in it, whatsoever. It was totally God's doing. Which means, it was also God's doing that all the rest are destined to hell.

[James Banta]

Phoenix, that is, basically, my thinking. I would only amend that I do believe God is absolutely sovereign, but he does not, generally, exercise his sovereignty over man, especially, in regards to salvation. He desires that we all come to him and, I believe, he does draw us all...all the time...but, not all are receptive, and even though he is sovereign, he does allow individual agency.

He will not "force" us to come to him, but he will "aid" us, in coming to him, if we ask and desire it.

Calvinists believe that God's people have been chosen (by God) before the foundation of the earth and they had no say in it, whatsoever. It was totally God's doing. Which means, it was also God's doing that all the rest are destined to hell.

Again I see you limiting the knowledge of God.. IHS jim

[Phoenix]

Again I see you limiting the knowledge of God.. IHS jim

She isn't limiting God's KNOWLEDGE. She is recognizing that God limits His own CHOICES. He knows HOW to boss everyone around so they would always do what He would LIKE them to do, but He doesn't do that because He knows it would go against His plan. So it's not a matter of limited knowledge.

[alanmolstad]

t was also God's doing that all the rest are destined to hell.

the Calvinist teaching that god predestined some to Hell is a corner that Calvin painted himself into that Walter Martin attacked for being the wrong idea it is.

The calvinist believes in this idea strongly...yet they struggle to base this idea on the Bible.
It turns out that the bible does not teach their view of predestination.

This is why you can challenge a Calvinist on this teaching.

The Calvinist also has another idea they like to push that has no support in the bible.....its their " no free will" teaching.

Calvinists love/need people to not have Free Will because their whole theology falls down like a house of cards if man has a free will.

[disciple]

the Calvinist teaching that god predestined some to Hell is a corner that Calvin painted himself into that Walter Martin attacked for being the wrong idea it is.

The calvinist believes in this idea strongly...yet they struggle to base this idea on the Bible.
It turns out that the bible does not teach their view of predestination.

This is why you can challenge a Calvinist on this teaching.

The Calvinist also has another idea they like to push that has no support in the bible.....its their " no free will" teaching.

Calvinists love/need people to not have Free Will because their whole theology falls down like a house of cards if man has a free will.

I find the term "predestined" in only two places, Romans chapter 8 and Ephesians chapter 1 and both references are concerning believers, it is never used in reference to unbelievers.

[alanmolstad]

I find the term "predestined" in only two places, Romans chapter 8 and Ephesians chapter 1 and both references are concerning believers, it is never used in reference to unbelievers.

i have a feeling a lot of Calvinists watching this conversion are also finding out this little fact of the bible now too!

[disciple]

i have a feeling a lot of Calvinists watching this conversion are also finding out this little fact of the bible now too!

Two of the most important things I have learned is first that God is sovereign and second I will not understand all His ways. He is trustworthy and Holy and does not have to give me a satisfactory explanation for everything in the Bible.

[alanmolstad]

Two of the most important things I have learned is first that God is sovereign and second I will not understand all His ways. He is trustworthy and Holy and does not have to give me a satisfactory explanation for everything in the Bible.


in the recording of Walter Martin teaching on this topic he says that people are always stumped on how mans free will works so easy within gods sovereignty?

the answer Walter Martin said to this question is..."No one knows how but it just does"




the bible teaches that man has free will....that we must make a decision to believe...
the bible tells us that there is nothing stopping us except for our own free will decision to not believe.

the bible also informs us that we cant come to christ except god fist draw us...and that god draws all men.
so this means god does not predestine anyone to Hell...nor does god send anyone to Hell.....

[RealFakeHair]

Two of the most important things I have learned is first that God is sovereign and second I will not understand all His ways. He is trustworthy and Holy and does not have to give me a satisfactory explanation for everything in the Bible.
The key word here is (satisfactory). Jesus said to search the Scriptures.
I believe in them is the answers we all seek answers, however our on biases and background somethings conflict with God's Truth, and that can be a problem.