The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

So Lutherans also believe that man cannot reject God's overtures? We can't chose to turn away from Him if He picks us? And those not chosen never had a chance, as they were not given the grace needed to choose God? Not trying to grill you. Just trying to get your perspective. I did not know this about the Lutheran tradition.

Also, a separate question for you or anyone of the Calvinist/reformed persuasion: we obviously see atheists doing good deeds. We know those good deeds aren't going to save them, but they do good deeds nonetheless. Where does that fit into the total depravity doctrine?

---

No? That's the exact opposite of what I said.

---

Then I guess I misread your post. I thought that's what you were driving at. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

---

No worries. There's not a lot of TULIP that Lutherans agree with, but "Total Depravity" is the one we would.

We "could" find agreement in "Unconditional Election" in the sense that when Jesus says all, we believe He means all.

Limited atonement/Irresistible Grace are something we deny. Got wants to save all, and calls all, but many will resist/reject Him, and that is something He has always.

---

Thanks for that. So in your view, is the rejecting or accepting of His call not a "work" of sorts?

---

It's paradoxical.

Salvation is a monergistic act of God. Our salvation is only because of God, and it's the natural order of things. He has called all, He has given salvation to all. I don't think it holds that we can call something a choice or a work that describes a gift already given to us. Humanity is passive in this because we are receiving what has already been given.

Damnation is synergistic (for a lack of a better word). It's our choice to reject/not cooperate with God, and He allows that. Humanity is active in this. We continually give into the original sin of Adam and choose to go against God.

What I think we need to get away from is some belief that we reasoned ourself into accepting God as if it was some free choice. God stacked it in His favor. He sent his savior. He speaks to us through His Spirit. He put His laws on our heart. He uses others to spread His word. And then we want to claim we made a free choice? I just don't think that holds.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

So Lutherans also believe that man cannot reject God's overtures? We can't chose to turn away from Him if He picks us? And those not chosen never had a chance, as they were not given the grace needed to choose God? Not trying to grill you. Just trying to get your perspective. I did not know this about the Lutheran tradition.

Also, a separate question for you or anyone of the Calvinist/reformed persuasion: we obviously see atheists doing good deeds. We know those good deeds aren't going to save them, but they do good deeds nonetheless. Where does that fit into the total depravity doctrine?

---

No? That's the exact opposite of what I said.

---

Then I guess I misread your post. I thought that's what you were driving at. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

---

No worries. There's not a lot of TULIP that Lutherans agree with, but "Total Depravity" is the one we would.

We "could" find agreement in "Unconditional Election" in the sense that when Jesus says all, we believe He means all.

Limited atonement/Irresistible Grace are something we deny. Got wants to save all, and calls all, but many will resist/reject Him, and that is something He has always.

---

Thanks for that. So in your view, is the rejecting or accepting of His call not a "work" of sorts?

---

It's paradoxical.

Salvation is a monergistic act of God. Our salvation is only because of God, and it's the natural order of things. He has called all, He has given salvation to all. I don't think it holds that we can call something a choice or a work that describes a gift already given to us. Humanity is passive in this because we are receiving what has already been given.

Damnation is synergistic (for a lack of a better word). It's our choice to reject/not cooperate with God, and He allows that. Humanity is active in this. We continually give into the original sin of Adam and choose to go against God.

What I think we need to get away from is some belief that we reasoned ourself into accepting God as if it was some free choice. God stacked it in His favor. He sent his savior. He speaks to us through His Spirit. He put His laws on our heart. He uses others to spread His word. And then we want to claim we made a free choice? I just don't think that holds.

---

I actually can go along with that. I can not go along with any theology that says that God pre ordains some to eternal torment.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

We talked about this a ways back somewhere else but what is the catholic stance on righteousness?

You would not agree with the view I hold around double imputation - where Christ takes on my sin and I am imputed his righteousness. Once and for all. Tied to our justification.

What is the catholic counter to this process? I brought it up once and was told I was not correct in my understanding of the catholic process. My understanding was that you essentially need to go back to the well regularly, for lack of a better way to explain it.

---

Christ died, once and for all. But since we are created with free will, we choose whether or not to accept His sacrifice throughout the course of our life. Just because I pick Jesus today, doesn't mean I can't reject Him tomorrow. That, in my opinion, is a truly synergistic journey because I must continue to submit to Him. And that journey requires a truly free person to chose both bad and good.

Hence the reason all the warnings in the Bible to stay close to Him, to avoid sin and watch out for false teachers. What good are any of those warnings if me accepting His sacrifice one time sealed the deal?

ETA: the idea that we are a new creation with new desire is still true. But the devil works hard to take back what he had. Hence the whole spiritual warfare thing. What's the point of the devil even fighting for the ones that are locked in? He's wasting a bunch of time too

---

So what about scripture such as John 6:37-40 and John 10:27-30?

---

Proof texting doesn't work. We have to take the scripture as a whole. There is a reason atheists always claim that the Bible contradicts itself, and that is because anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want with this formula. You send me some that you think prove unconditional election, I show you some that warn of falling away from the faith and we get nowhere

---

Taking scripture as a whole, the entire Bible is about God choosing people that belong to him. I said it before in another post...Abraham and Moses didn't come seeking God on their own accord. The twelve didn't respond to a flier that Jesus posted in the Capernaum town square asking for followers. Paul has been discussed. All of these are examples of God's sovereign election.

If anything the anti-election crowd has been sending over random verses to support their personal autonomy.

---

Sorry but I have to respond. I am not anti election as that is clearly Biblical. I do think God elects some to be special messengers or whatever, in fact we are all elected to do what God planned for us to do.

I do not tie election into salvation and that is where I differ with my Reformed brothers. And that is okay. We have different views. So be it.

I kind of bristle at the suggestion that I throw out random verses. How else can I make my case? And you never respond to them but laugh them off.

I am not the one having to add words or brush off Scripture to make my theology make sense.

As I stated earlier, it is like one gets a Reformed/Calvinist lens, then every Scripture is interpreted through that lens.

That being said, I love any brother in Christ and am firmly convinced Christ will be Lord of all.

And I do not know what lit me up. Whether it is being called anti election or being accused of sending over random verses. Seems arrogant to me.

Shalom.

---

Honestly have no issue with verses or passages of scripture being used. I welcome it, as I believe scripture interprets scripture and I need to be able to reference scripture to support my beliefs otherwise they have no legs to stand on. Likely just a poor use of words in that rebuttal on mine. I was just a bit surprised that using scripture was frowned upon from another reply. Perhaps one big misunderstanding.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

We talked about this a ways back somewhere else but what is the catholic stance on righteousness?

You would not agree with the view I hold around double imputation - where Christ takes on my sin and I am imputed his righteousness. Once and for all. Tied to our justification.

What is the catholic counter to this process? I brought it up once and was told I was not correct in my understanding of the catholic process. My understanding was that you essentially need to go back to the well regularly, for lack of a better way to explain it.

---

Christ died, once and for all. But since we are created with free will, we choose whether or not to accept His sacrifice throughout the course of our life. Just because I pick Jesus today, doesn't mean I can't reject Him tomorrow. That, in my opinion, is a truly synergistic journey because I must continue to submit to Him. And that journey requires a truly free person to chose both bad and good.

Hence the reason all the warnings in the Bible to stay close to Him, to avoid sin and watch out for false teachers. What good are any of those warnings if me accepting His sacrifice one time sealed the deal?

ETA: the idea that we are a new creation with new desire is still true. But the devil works hard to take back what he had. Hence the whole spiritual warfare thing. What's the point of the devil even fighting for the ones that are locked in? He's wasting a bunch of time too

---

So what about scripture such as John 6:37-40 and John 10:27-30?

---

Proof texting doesn't work. We have to take the scripture as a whole. There is a reason atheists always claim that the Bible contradicts itself, and that is because anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want with this formula. You send me some that you think prove unconditional election, I show you some that warn of falling away from the faith and we get nowhere

---

Taking scripture as a whole, the entire Bible is about God choosing people that belong to him. I said it before in another post...Abraham and Moses didn't come seeking God on their own accord. The twelve didn't respond to a flier that Jesus posted in the Capernaum town square asking for followers. Paul has been discussed. All of these are examples of God's sovereign election.

If anything the anti-election crowd has been sending over random verses to support their personal autonomy.

---

Sorry but I have to respond. I am not anti election as that is clearly Biblical. I do think God elects some to be special messengers or whatever, in fact we are all elected to do what God planned for us to do.

I do not tie election into salvation and that is where I differ with my Reformed brothers. And that is okay. We have different views. So be it.

I kind of bristle at the suggestion that I throw out random verses. How else can I make my case? And you never respond to them but laugh them off.

I am not the one having to add words or brush off Scripture to make my theology make sense.

As I stated earlier, it is like one gets a Reformed/Calvinist lens, then every Scripture is interpreted through that lens.

That being said, I love any brother in Christ and am firmly convinced Christ will be Lord of all.

And I do not know what lit me up. Whether it is being called anti election or being accused of sending over random verses. Seems arrogant to me.

Shalom.

---

Honestly have no issue with verses or passages of scripture being used. I welcome it, as I believe scripture interprets scripture and I need to be able to reference scripture to support my beliefs otherwise they have no legs to stand on. Likely just a poor use of words in that rebuttal on mine. I was just a bit surprised that using scripture was frowned upon from another reply. Perhaps one big misunderstanding.

---

Fair enough. I am also not "anti election". I do not think any non Reformed posters are "anti election" as it is clearly Biblical. We just see election differently than the reformed do.
And you never respond to Scripture I post.

You are a great guy and brother in Christ. We just disagree. Which has gone on for centuries.

Maybe I took your post personally. If so, sorry.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Can he override? Sure. Why doesn't he? I don't know. His greater purpose will be accomplished no matter what you or I choose to do.

---

So I want to commit a sin. God can make me stop. God doesn't want to make me stop…

How is this not God wanting us to sin? Am I missing something?

---

I am not sure. God simply wants his children to trust and obey. Our sinful actions are not going to thwart his plans. We have the freedom to obey or rebel. We are not going to be perfect, but over the course of our regenerated lives, we should have a trajectory towards obedience. God will use our brokenness to bring about our good as it promises in Romans 8.

---

This is where we get nice and circular:

We can't have chosen God because that is a work. So God must have chosen us. Now that we are chosen, we must choose to obey Him in return. If we don't choose to obey Him, we would lose our salvation. But we can't lose salvation under once saved always saved, so God must only pick people that he knows will obey Him. So you are chosen because of your willingness to do good works. But that's "works based salvation". He's choosing you for your goodness.

The only other option is the limited free will of Calvinism. He is making us do the good. If we fail to do the good, it's because He didn't stop us from doing the bad. So in some form or fashion, God wants that sin to happen.

---

I think this is where either you misunderstand or the word "choose" does us a disservice (much like offspring/children).

It's all about desire. We make choices everyday continually, over and over, and we always choose what we desire the most. We never lose our responsibility to choose the Lord but He must first change our hearts so that we desire to do so. Now that we have the desire to please Christ, will that desire win out 100% of the time? Unfortunately, no it will not. Sometimes we desire to sin more and thus will choose sin. That is why we will never be through grieving our sins and repenting. This is where sanctification comes in, which is a journey. As we work through our salvation hand-in-hand with the Holy Spirt, we will become more like Him, winning less and grieving ever more deeply when we do.

Now, do you want to call this choice to believe in, love, honor, and obey God a work and then claim that is works-based salvation? Obviously there again we have the issue of different definitions. When I hear the term "works-based salvation" I'm thinking of someone racking up enough points in the good deeds column to earn their salvation, which I do not believe to be biblical nor do I believe that choosing to follow God falls into this category.

When I think of "works" I'm thinking of the fruit we bear after we have come to salvation; our works are an outpouring of our faith. We don't do good works to BE saved, we do them BECAUSE we are saved.

---

Similar to what I said to 10, your second paragraph describes the Catholic faith. That very same belief gets Catholics labeled works based.

This is because we believe we can lose our salvation, and most Protestants believe in once saved, always saved. So I would ask you: if we're supposed to be doing those good things and some people don't/stop, why? Because people deluded themselves? Because God didn't actually pick them? Ok, then God causes you to do the good things, and not them. Your compliance is caused by Him, so we're back to all of that good fruit being caused by God, and all of your sin being intentionally allowed by God, meaning God wants people to sin.

Or, in my opinion, you can abandon once saved, always saved, embrace that God allows people to choose Him and choose to fall away again in the future should they so choose, and that our salvation requires our efforts in some capacity. Reformed doctrine has it wrong. Do that and the equation is solved. It doesn't mean we "earn" it. But we definitely can lose it.

---

There is too much compelling scripture for me to believe we can lose our salvation. If God gave me a new heart of flesh, it's not going to turn back to a heart of stone.

You have to step away from the notion that people are robots in Calvinistic doctrine. It's all about desire. We choose what we desire. Before regeneration we desire sin, we are slaves to it, and therefore freely choose sin. When we are given new hearts, we desire the Lord, and freely choose to please Him. We aren't being unwilling forced to make these decisions. If we were, we'd never sin again. It doesn't please God when we sin but He allows it and will use it according to His purpose.

I'm sure you already know this but the answer to the questions about those who have "fallen away" was they were never truly regenerate to begin with.

---

This still leaves two issues:

1. God changed your heart. You couldn't do good without that. But He left your bad desires on purpose. How does that not mean that he WANTS you to sin. The alternative is He wants you to actively choose Him, which requires true free will and a possibility of falling away? I think you have to pick one here.

2. As you noted in your response to Zobel, you believe you can have real assurance and false assurance. What makes you convinced you aren't one of the ones with false assurance? And do you think the ones that were falsely assured and ended up falling away weren't truly convinced they were saved at the time? If they were deluded, how can you be sure you aren't. Saying they weren't truly saved seems to solve the falling away problem but opens the door wide to the issue of false assurance. I don't think that's better. In fact, I think it's worse because you can be warned not to lose your faith (as the Bible does many times) but there is nothing you can do to guard against false assurance. God may have already decided you're going to hell and you may not find out for another 30 years, wasting a lot of time along the way.

---

1. If the Lord made me incapable of sinning, THAT would be robotic. This ties into the question of why does God allow evil.

2. How far does someone have to fall for them to lose their salvation? The most minor of sins should do the trick, which would we could never have more than momentary assurance, if even that. Not only that, but we'd have to continually be saved over and over and pray that every single thing was in Godly order the moment we die. I'd rather feel assured and proven wrong later than never being able to have assurance; which would be the case if falling away were a possibility.

---

1. You say He is allowing evil. That's fine, as we say that too. But in your framework, everything is inside of God's active will. I don't see any room for God's permissive will , as we would call it. If God is fully sovereign, it is his active will that people sin. This is why I find Calvinism so detestable. Link for clarity from a Calvinist site. https://philgons.com/2010/06/calvin-on-gods-permissive-will/

2. The break with God happens when we actively choose to intentionally break communion with him with grave sin. Cussing when you step on a Lego, or feeling anger when your kids act up isn't you rejecting God. But having sec with another woman and not being remorseful? Never working prayer into your daily routine? Not giving of your abundance to those in need? In other words, intentionally doing what you shouldn't be doing and not stopping when corrected.

Hence the need to confess your sins and try to do better. That's all it takes. Repenting to the best of your ability through the grace God has given you. It's interesting that you'd rather be potentially blindsided after years of wasting your time rather than be given the formula to stay in God's flock.

---

But to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster. Sorry but He is love.

---

Deuteronomy 28:15-24
Curses for Disobedience
15 "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. 16 Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field. 17 Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. 18 Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. 19 Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.

20 "The Lord will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me. 21 The Lord will make the pestilence stick to you until he has consumed you off the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 22 The Lord will strike you with wasting disease and with fever, inflammation and fiery heat, and with drought[a] and with blight and with mildew. They shall pursue you until you perish. 23 And the heavens over your head shall be bronze, and the earth under you shall be iron. 24 The Lord will make the rain of your land powder. From heaven dust shall come down on you until you are destroyed.

Numbers 21:4-9
The Bronze Serpent
4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5 And the people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food." 6 Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the Lord said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." 9 So Moses made a bronze[a] serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

Ultimately the greatest sickness or disease, sin, was allowed to enter the world in Genesis 3.

God allowed Satan to absolutely ravish Job and his family.

I don't think we can absolutely deny the idea that God might actively give cancer to someone. His purposes are far greater than your worldly and human mind can fathom.

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

We talked about this a ways back somewhere else but what is the catholic stance on righteousness?

You would not agree with the view I hold around double imputation - where Christ takes on my sin and I am imputed his righteousness. Once and for all. Tied to our justification.

What is the catholic counter to this process? I brought it up once and was told I was not correct in my understanding of the catholic process. My understanding was that you essentially need to go back to the well regularly, for lack of a better way to explain it.

---

Christ died, once and for all. But since we are created with free will, we choose whether or not to accept His sacrifice throughout the course of our life. Just because I pick Jesus today, doesn't mean I can't reject Him tomorrow. That, in my opinion, is a truly synergistic journey because I must continue to submit to Him. And that journey requires a truly free person to chose both bad and good.

Hence the reason all the warnings in the Bible to stay close to Him, to avoid sin and watch out for false teachers. What good are any of those warnings if me accepting His sacrifice one time sealed the deal?

ETA: the idea that we are a new creation with new desire is still true. But the devil works hard to take back what he had. Hence the whole spiritual warfare thing. What's the point of the devil even fighting for the ones that are locked in? He's wasting a bunch of time too

---

So what about scripture such as John 6:37-40 and John 10:27-30?

---

Proof texting doesn't work. We have to take the scripture as a whole. There is a reason atheists always claim that the Bible contradicts itself, and that is because anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want with this formula. You send me some that you think prove unconditional election, I show you some that warn of falling away from the faith and we get nowhere

---

Taking scripture as a whole, the entire Bible is about God choosing people that belong to him. I said it before in another post...Abraham and Moses didn't come seeking God on their own accord. The twelve didn't respond to a flier that Jesus posted in the Capernaum town square asking for followers. Paul has been discussed. All of these are examples of God's sovereign election.

If anything the anti-election crowd has been sending over random verses to support their personal autonomy.

---

Sorry but I have to respond. I am not anti election as that is clearly Biblical. I do think God elects some to be special messengers or whatever, in fact we are all elected to do what God planned for us to do.

I do not tie election into salvation and that is where I differ with my Reformed brothers. And that is okay. We have different views. So be it.

I kind of bristle at the suggestion that I throw out random verses. How else can I make my case? And you never respond to them but laugh them off.

I am not the one having to add words or brush off Scripture to make my theology make sense.

As I stated earlier, it is like one gets a Reformed/Calvinist lens, then every Scripture is interpreted through that lens.

That being said, I love any brother in Christ and am firmly convinced Christ will be Lord of all.

And I do not know what lit me up. Whether it is being called anti election or being accused of sending over random verses. Seems arrogant to me.

Shalom.

---

Honestly have no issue with verses or passages of scripture being used. I welcome it, as I believe scripture interprets scripture and I need to be able to reference scripture to support my beliefs otherwise they have no legs to stand on. Likely just a poor use of words in that rebuttal on mine. I was just a bit surprised that using scripture was frowned upon from another reply. Perhaps one big misunderstanding.

---

Fair enough. I am also not "anti election". I do not think any non Reformed posters are "anti election" as it is clearly Biblical. We just see election differently than the reformed do.
And you never respond to Scripture I post.

You are a great guy and brother in Christ. We just disagree. Which has gone on for centuries.

Maybe I took your post personally. If so, sorry.

---

Yep, was definitely not intended for anyone in particular.

I think we both can go back and forth citing scripture that supports that other side. That is some of the tension I think if we are honest, we all struggle with at times.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Can he override? Sure. Why doesn't he? I don't know. His greater purpose will be accomplished no matter what you or I choose to do.

---

So I want to commit a sin. God can make me stop. God doesn't want to make me stop…

How is this not God wanting us to sin? Am I missing something?

---

I am not sure. God simply wants his children to trust and obey. Our sinful actions are not going to thwart his plans. We have the freedom to obey or rebel. We are not going to be perfect, but over the course of our regenerated lives, we should have a trajectory towards obedience. God will use our brokenness to bring about our good as it promises in Romans 8.

---

This is where we get nice and circular:

We can't have chosen God because that is a work. So God must have chosen us. Now that we are chosen, we must choose to obey Him in return. If we don't choose to obey Him, we would lose our salvation. But we can't lose salvation under once saved always saved, so God must only pick people that he knows will obey Him. So you are chosen because of your willingness to do good works. But that's "works based salvation". He's choosing you for your goodness.

The only other option is the limited free will of Calvinism. He is making us do the good. If we fail to do the good, it's because He didn't stop us from doing the bad. So in some form or fashion, God wants that sin to happen.

---

I think this is where either you misunderstand or the word "choose" does us a disservice (much like offspring/children).

It's all about desire. We make choices everyday continually, over and over, and we always choose what we desire the most. We never lose our responsibility to choose the Lord but He must first change our hearts so that we desire to do so. Now that we have the desire to please Christ, will that desire win out 100% of the time? Unfortunately, no it will not. Sometimes we desire to sin more and thus will choose sin. That is why we will never be through grieving our sins and repenting. This is where sanctification comes in, which is a journey. As we work through our salvation hand-in-hand with the Holy Spirt, we will become more like Him, winning less and grieving ever more deeply when we do.

Now, do you want to call this choice to believe in, love, honor, and obey God a work and then claim that is works-based salvation? Obviously there again we have the issue of different definitions. When I hear the term "works-based salvation" I'm thinking of someone racking up enough points in the good deeds column to earn their salvation, which I do not believe to be biblical nor do I believe that choosing to follow God falls into this category.

When I think of "works" I'm thinking of the fruit we bear after we have come to salvation; our works are an outpouring of our faith. We don't do good works to BE saved, we do them BECAUSE we are saved.

---

Similar to what I said to 10, your second paragraph describes the Catholic faith. That very same belief gets Catholics labeled works based.

This is because we believe we can lose our salvation, and most Protestants believe in once saved, always saved. So I would ask you: if we're supposed to be doing those good things and some people don't/stop, why? Because people deluded themselves? Because God didn't actually pick them? Ok, then God causes you to do the good things, and not them. Your compliance is caused by Him, so we're back to all of that good fruit being caused by God, and all of your sin being intentionally allowed by God, meaning God wants people to sin.

Or, in my opinion, you can abandon once saved, always saved, embrace that God allows people to choose Him and choose to fall away again in the future should they so choose, and that our salvation requires our efforts in some capacity. Reformed doctrine has it wrong. Do that and the equation is solved. It doesn't mean we "earn" it. But we definitely can lose it.

---

There is too much compelling scripture for me to believe we can lose our salvation. If God gave me a new heart of flesh, it's not going to turn back to a heart of stone.

You have to step away from the notion that people are robots in Calvinistic doctrine. It's all about desire. We choose what we desire. Before regeneration we desire sin, we are slaves to it, and therefore freely choose sin. When we are given new hearts, we desire the Lord, and freely choose to please Him. We aren't being unwilling forced to make these decisions. If we were, we'd never sin again. It doesn't please God when we sin but He allows it and will use it according to His purpose.

I'm sure you already know this but the answer to the questions about those who have "fallen away" was they were never truly regenerate to begin with.

---

This still leaves two issues:

1. God changed your heart. You couldn't do good without that. But He left your bad desires on purpose. How does that not mean that he WANTS you to sin. The alternative is He wants you to actively choose Him, which requires true free will and a possibility of falling away? I think you have to pick one here.

2. As you noted in your response to Zobel, you believe you can have real assurance and false assurance. What makes you convinced you aren't one of the ones with false assurance? And do you think the ones that were falsely assured and ended up falling away weren't truly convinced they were saved at the time? If they were deluded, how can you be sure you aren't. Saying they weren't truly saved seems to solve the falling away problem but opens the door wide to the issue of false assurance. I don't think that's better. In fact, I think it's worse because you can be warned not to lose your faith (as the Bible does many times) but there is nothing you can do to guard against false assurance. God may have already decided you're going to hell and you may not find out for another 30 years, wasting a lot of time along the way.

---

1. If the Lord made me incapable of sinning, THAT would be robotic. This ties into the question of why does God allow evil.

2. How far does someone have to fall for them to lose their salvation? The most minor of sins should do the trick, which would we could never have more than momentary assurance, if even that. Not only that, but we'd have to continually be saved over and over and pray that every single thing was in Godly order the moment we die. I'd rather feel assured and proven wrong later than never being able to have assurance; which would be the case if falling away were a possibility.

---

1. You say He is allowing evil. That's fine, as we say that too. But in your framework, everything is inside of God's active will. I don't see any room for God's permissive will , as we would call it. If God is fully sovereign, it is his active will that people sin. This is why I find Calvinism so detestable. Link for clarity from a Calvinist site. https://philgons.com/2010/06/calvin-on-gods-permissive-will/

2. The break with God happens when we actively choose to intentionally break communion with him with grave sin. Cussing when you step on a Lego, or feeling anger when your kids act up isn't you rejecting God. But having sec with another woman and not being remorseful? Never working prayer into your daily routine? Not giving of your abundance to those in need? In other words, intentionally doing what you shouldn't be doing and not stopping when corrected.

Hence the need to confess your sins and try to do better. That's all it takes. Repenting to the best of your ability through the grace God has given you. It's interesting that you'd rather be potentially blindsided after years of wasting your time rather than be given the formula to stay in God's flock.

---

But to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster. Sorry but He is love.

---

Deuteronomy 28:15-24
Curses for Disobedience
15 "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. 16 Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field. 17 Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. 18 Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. 19 Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.

20 "The Lord will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me. 21 The Lord will make the pestilence stick to you until he has consumed you off the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 22 The Lord will strike you with wasting disease and with fever, inflammation and fiery heat, and with drought[a] and with blight and with mildew. They shall pursue you until you perish. 23 And the heavens over your head shall be bronze, and the earth under you shall be iron. 24 The Lord will make the rain of your land powder. From heaven dust shall come down on you until you are destroyed.

Numbers 21:4-9
The Bronze Serpent
4 From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom. And the people became impatient on the way. 5 And the people spoke against God and against Moses, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food." 6 Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 And the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the Lord said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." 9 So Moses made a bronze[a] serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

Ultimately the greatest sickness or disease, sin, was allowed to enter the world in Genesis 3.

God allowed Satan to absolutely ravish Job and his family.

I don't think we can absolutely deny the idea that God might actively give cancer to someone. His purposes are far greater than your worldly and human mind can fathom.

---

I can go along with God allowed cancer or disease. Jesus was the revelation of God. He always healed. And I believe we have a new Covenant through Christ. I do not read about Christ angrily giving his opponents diseases because of His "wrath".

And there has not been another great flood, etc. we are under a covenant of grace because of Christ and the cross.

I will stick with that.

And I will add, Jesus allowed Lazarus to die to show God's glory. He did not cause his death and in fact, wept.

It doesn't say the Lord "allowed". It says the Lord sends, makes, strikes.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

It doesn't say the Lord "allowed". It says the Lord sends, makes, strikes.

---

Where does that happen in the New Testament?

Do you agree we are under a different covenant? Heck, that was all about the Jews and God's covenant with them. As Gentiles, it is totally different.

Why do you think Christ came?

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

Exodus 12:29
The Tenth Plague: Death of the Firstborn
29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

God is unchanging - he was the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time. You project an awful lot. Please read exactly what I posted nd don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Exodus 12:29
The Tenth Plague: Death of the Firstborn
29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.

---

That was the covenant with the Jews.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

Is the implication that God is more loving today than he was to the Jews?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where did Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Is the implication that God is more loving today than he was to the Jews?

---

No. God does not change. He gave a new covenant through Jesus. Scripture is clear about this.

Do you believe Jesus is the revelation of God? And that when Jesus came, our relationship with God changed? Do we still do animal sacrifices? Did the Temple curtain get torn in half which means access to God is not just through the Levitical priests. Because of Christ, we can go directly to God with Jesus as our intermediary.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are missing the new covenant of grace.

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

Matthew 10:34-36

Not Peace, but a Sword
34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

Matthew 10:34-36

Not Peace, but a Sword
34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

---

But that is human on human stuff. And a lot of that would be from "religious" leaders who believed they the elect because of their Jewish heritage. That is always whom he targeted.

Jesus himself stated in I believe his first public proclamation

Luke 4:18

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.

That is the character of God as revealed through Jesus. His very words.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

God has never been a monster and never changes. It was a different covenant. In that covenant Scripture tells us how Ne dealt with the Jews and their enemies.

Jesus brought a totally new covenant. God does not change. His covenant with us did.

Do you believe Jesus is the revelation of God and His character?

Where did Christ ever give people diseases? Or tell the Jews to go out and kill abides and women? The covenant changed. God did not.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

God has never been a monster and never changes. It was a different covenant. In that covenant Scripture tells us how Ne dealt with the Jews and their enemies.

Jesus brought a totally new covenant. God does not change. His covenant with us did.

---

Do you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever under the old covenant?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

God has never been a monster and never changes. It was a different covenant. In that covenant Scripture tells us how Ne dealt with the Jews and their enemies.

Jesus brought a totally new covenant. God does not change. His covenant with us did.

---

Do you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever under the old covenant?

---

Yes.

Do you agree Jesus never did any of those things under the new covenant?

Do you believe Jesus is the revelation of God and His character?

I mean, that is why Jesus came. To change our relationship with God. And to make us repent, which means change our minds, on the meaning and purpose of life and the assurance of eternal life

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

God has never been a monster and never changes. It was a different covenant. In that covenant Scripture tells us how Ne dealt with the Jews and their enemies.

Jesus brought a totally new covenant. God does not change. His covenant with us did.

---

Do you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever under the old covenant?

---

Yes.

Do you agree Jesus never did any of those things under the new covenant?

Do you believe Jesus is the revelation of God and His character?

---

Does saying "God sends curses, makes pestilence stick to people, strikes them with disease and fever" make him to be a monster?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

God has never been a monster and never changes. It was a different covenant. In that covenant Scripture tells us how Ne dealt with the Jews and their enemies.

Jesus brought a totally new covenant. God does not change. His covenant with us did.

---

Do you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever under the old covenant?

---

Yes.

Do you agree Jesus never did any of those things under the new covenant?

Do you believe Jesus is the revelation of God and His character?

---

Does saying "God sends curses, makes pestilence stick to people, strikes them with disease and fever" make him to be a monster?

---

No. It was a different covenant. How many times do I have to say the same thing? Are you living under the old covenant? Unless you are Jew, why? Paul fervently believed in the old covenant. Until God removed the scales from his eyes.

Or the covenant of grace which God graciously gave us in Jesus? I am under the new covenant praise the Lord!

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

God has never been a monster and never changes. It was a different covenant. In that covenant Scripture tells us how Ne dealt with the Jews and their enemies.

Jesus brought a totally new covenant. God does not change. His covenant with us did.

---

Do you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever under the old covenant?

---

Yes.

Do you agree Jesus never did any of those things under the new covenant?

Do you believe Jesus is the revelation of God and His character?

---

Does saying "God sends curses, makes pestilence stick to people, strikes them with disease and fever" make him to be a monster?

---

No. It was a different covenant. How many times do I have to say the same thing? Are you living under that covenant?

Or the covenant of grace which God graciously gave us in Jesus? I am under the new covenant praise the Lord!

---

But above you said it makes him a monster.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

God has never been a monster and never changes. It was a different covenant. In that covenant Scripture tells us how Ne dealt with the Jews and their enemies.

Jesus brought a totally new covenant. God does not change. His covenant with us did.

---

Do you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever under the old covenant?

---

Yes.

Do you agree Jesus never did any of those things under the new covenant?

Do you believe Jesus is the revelation of God and His character?

---

Does saying "God sends curses, makes pestilence stick to people, strikes them with disease and fever" make him to be a monster?

---

No. It was a different covenant. How many times do I have to say the same thing? Are you living under that covenant?

Or the covenant of grace which God graciously gave us in Jesus? I am under the new covenant praise the Lord!

---

But above you said it makes him a monster.

---

I believe I said you are making God into a monster if you believe things like God actively gives people cancer, etc.

I probably should have clarified I meant under the new covenant. Apologies.

I feel like I am in a courtroom.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

God has never been a monster and never changes. It was a different covenant. In that covenant Scripture tells us how Ne dealt with the Jews and their enemies.

Jesus brought a totally new covenant. God does not change. His covenant with us did.

---

Do you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever under the old covenant?

---

Yes.

Do you agree Jesus never did any of those things under the new covenant?

Do you believe Jesus is the revelation of God and His character?

---

Does saying "God sends curses, makes pestilence stick to people, strikes them with disease and fever" make him to be a monster?

---

No. It was a different covenant. How many times do I have to say the same thing? Are you living under that covenant?

Or the covenant of grace which God graciously gave us in Jesus? I am under the new covenant praise the Lord!

---

But above you said it makes him a monster.

---

I believe I said if you still believe in the old covenant, YOU are making God into a monster.

---

So maybe you mean to say, God actively giving a person cancer does not make him a monster, but he doesn't do that anymore.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

God has never been a monster and never changes. It was a different covenant. In that covenant Scripture tells us how Ne dealt with the Jews and their enemies.

Jesus brought a totally new covenant. God does not change. His covenant with us did.

---

Do you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever under the old covenant?

---

Yes.

Do you agree Jesus never did any of those things under the new covenant?

Do you believe Jesus is the revelation of God and His character?

---

Does saying "God sends curses, makes pestilence stick to people, strikes them with disease and fever" make him to be a monster?

---

No. It was a different covenant. How many times do I have to say the same thing? Are you living under that covenant?

Or the covenant of grace which God graciously gave us in Jesus? I am under the new covenant praise the Lord!

---

But above you said it makes him a monster.

---

I believe I said if you still believe in the old covenant, YOU are making God into a monster.

---

So maybe you mean to say, God actively giving a person cancer does not make him a monster, but he doesn't do that anymore.

---

That is fair enough. Under the new covenant God has a different relationship with us. Praise the Lord!

You have never answered the questions if you believe Jesus is the perfect revelation of God and His character.

Or if Jesus did anything but heal? Everything changed with the new covenant. The temple curtains were torn in half. We have access to God because of what Jesus did. Praise the Lord!

Gospel means Good News. For all the people. Luke 2:10.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So a better way to put it is God was once a monster, but now he is love.

---

That is not what I said. And you do this all the time.

I clearly stated we are under a different covenant. God never changes. But his covenant with the Jews is different that the one given by Christ.

---

You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

And I think it does. God does not give people cancer under the new covenant.

Where is that in the New Testament (which actually is the new covenant of grace)?

Where do Christ do anything but heal? Things changed between us and God.

---

Do you think God was a monster under the old covenant?

---

No, He was the same. He had a different covenant with the Jews.

I think with the new covenant if you believe God interacts with us the same way as He with Jews under the old covenant then you are wrongly making him into a monster. He is not and has never been. You are the one making Him wrongly into a monster

What did Jesus himself say was the reason He came?

---

But you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever. How was he not a monster back then? You said "to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster."

---

God has never been a monster and never changes. It was a different covenant. In that covenant Scripture tells us how Ne dealt with the Jews and their enemies.

Jesus brought a totally new covenant. God does not change. His covenant with us did.

---

Do you agree he sent curses, made pestilence stick to people, struck them with disease and fever under the old covenant?

---

Yes.

Do you agree Jesus never did any of those things under the new covenant?

Do you believe Jesus is the revelation of God and His character?

---

Does saying "God sends curses, makes pestilence stick to people, strikes them with disease and fever" make him to be a monster?

---

No. It was a different covenant. How many times do I have to say the same thing? Are you living under that covenant?

Or the covenant of grace which God graciously gave us in Jesus? I am under the new covenant praise the Lord!

---

But above you said it makes him a monster.

---

I feel like I am in a courtroom.

---

This is funny.

Seems very similar to how the "religious" leaders acted in the New Testament. And remember how angry they got? They did not want repent or change. They did not want the old covenant to go away.
Why did Jesus come if not to bring a new covenant and change our relationship with God? He died for our sins as a single act which changed everything. And rose from the dead.

Therefore we have a new covenant of grace and the promise of eternal life.

Praise the Lord!