10andBOUNCE 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 feel like I am in a courtroom.

---

This is funny.

---

Funny, I answer all the questions. Even when repeated over and over and I have given clear answers.

The other poster had answered none of mine.

I think he wants to stone me.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE 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 feel like I am in a courtroom.

---

This is funny.

---

Funny, I answer all the questions. Even when repeated over and over and I have given clear answers.

The other poster had answered none of mine.

I think he wants to stone me.

---

I think blaspheming God by calling him a monster (even in the past) is very serious and should require more reflection on your part before writing it.

---

I believe I said your theology made Him a monster. In fact, I know that is what I said. I said your beliefs were making him into a monster.

Is it blasphemy to say that about Calvinism? Is Calvin God?

In fact, if you can find where I posted that "God is a monster" and not reference to Calvinism beliefs I will repent and donate 100 bucks to your church or any charity you want.

How many times did you ask me if I thought God was a monster (in so many different ways thus the courtroom comparison)? What was always my answer. A simple no. Ironically, reminds me of the tactics used by "religious" leaders in the New Testament.

And yet you refuse to answer my questions of you.

I will repeat them for the umpteenth time.

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

Did Jesus ever do anything but heal?

Merry Christmas!

I'm going to pull this into a new thread so as to not gun this one up anymore.

Why do you constantly call me a Calvinist? I'm Anglican. Yes, we believe some of what he taught, but that's theology. We build ours off of a tradition, not one man. And he wasn't this boogie man you make him out to be. Maybe you just like putting people in these theological camps so it's easier for you to call them monsters? Guess what, a LOT of theologians believed in the type of election you despise before Calvin was even born.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Why do you constantly call me a Calvinist? I'm Anglican. Yes, we believe some of what he taught, but that's theology. We build ours off of a tradition, not one man. And he wasn't this boogie man you make him out to be. Maybe you just like putting people in these theological camps so it's easier for you to call them monsters? Guess what, a LOT of theologians believed in the type of election you despise before Calvin was even born.

---

Fair enough. I apologize.

Do Anglicans think it is a sin to ask me the same question over and over again in this thread in an attempt to make a brother in Christ sin?

And unless you find where I called God a monster unless linked with Calvinism and specifically the doctrine of double pre destination my offer stands.

Do you consider it a sin to bear false witness?

And curious, does the Anglican Church believes God causes cancer and sickness? Or allows them for His greater purpose? Do y'all believe in double pre destination?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Why do you constantly call me a Calvinist? I'm Anglican. Yes, we believe some of what he taught, but that's theology. We build ours off of a tradition, not one man. And he wasn't this boogie man you make him out to be. Maybe you just like putting people in these theological camps so it's easier for you to call them monsters? Guess what, a LOT of theologians believed in the type of election you despise before Calvin was even born.

---

I am curious about this. I am not aware of any who advocated double pre destination (which is logically the conclusion of Calvin's writings in the Institutes) except maybe Augustine. In fact, I believe it was called a heresy.

And election is Biblical and has always been supported. Just not in the Calvin interpretation.
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/20084/other-than-augustine-which-church-fathers-have-directly-influenced-john-calvin

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Why do you constantly call me a Calvinist? I'm Anglican. Yes, we believe some of what he taught, but that's theology. We build ours off of a tradition, not one man. And he wasn't this boogie man you make him out to be. Maybe you just like putting people in these theological camps so it's easier for you to call them monsters? Guess what, a LOT of theologians believed in the type of election you despise before Calvin was even born.

---

Tetzel was the real monster!

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Why do you constantly call me a Calvinist? I'm Anglican. Yes, we believe some of what he taught, but that's theology. We build ours off of a tradition, not one man. And he wasn't this boogie man you make him out to be. Maybe you just like putting people in these theological camps so it's easier for you to call them monsters? Guess what, a LOT of theologians believed in the type of election you despise before Calvin was even born.

---

Fair enough. I apologize.

Do Anglicans think it is a sin to ask me the same question over and over again in this thread in an attempt to make a brother in Christ sin?

And unless you find where I called God a monster unless linked with Calvinism and specifically the doctrine of double pre destination my offer stands.

Do you consider it a sin to bear false witness?

And curious, does the Anglican Church believes God causes cancer and sickness? Or allows them for His greater purpose? Do y'all believe in double pre destination?

---

We use the Book of Common Prayer in conjunction with the Bible, in which you can find the articles of faith. Someone posted it here earlier in the thread as one pertains to predestination in what appeared to be some sort of 'gotcha'. There are different revisions to the BCP depending on which branch you're in.

If you re-read the article from the last page or two, you'll see all things are kept in relation to the Bible and should not contradict it. They're consistent with what I've been posting.

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Why do you constantly call me a Calvinist? I'm Anglican. Yes, we believe some of what he taught, but that's theology. We build ours off of a tradition, not one man. And he wasn't this boogie man you make him out to be. Maybe you just like putting people in these theological camps so it's easier for you to call them monsters? Guess what, a LOT of theologians believed in the type of election you despise before Calvin was even born.

---

Fair enough. I apologize.

Do Anglicans think it is a sin to ask me the same question over and over again in this thread in an attempt to make a brother in Christ sin?

And unless you find where I called God a monster unless linked with Calvinism and specifically the doctrine of double pre destination my offer stands.

Do you consider it a sin to bear false witness?

And curious, does the Anglican Church believes God causes cancer and sickness? Or allows them for His greater purpose? Do y'all believe in double pre destination?

---

We use the Book of Common Prayer in conjunction with the Bible, in which you can find the articles of faith. Someone posted it here earlier in the thread as one pertains to predestination in what appeared to be some sort of 'gotcha'. There are different revisions to the BCP depending on which branch you're in.

If you re-read the article from the last page or two, you'll see all things are kept in relation to the Bible and should not contradict it. They're consistent with what I've been posting.

---

Agree and have no problem with anything you have posted. As I have told you, I read the BCP. Not as faithfully as I used but will restart.
And I have a lot of Anglican friends. They do not treat me like one poster on here. We may disagree but there is not grilling to obtain a desired result, my sin.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Why do you constantly call me a Calvinist? I'm Anglican. Yes, we believe some of what he taught, but that's theology. We build ours off of a tradition, not one man. And he wasn't this boogie man you make him out to be. Maybe you just like putting people in these theological camps so it's easier for you to call them monsters? Guess what, a LOT of theologians believed in the type of election you despise before Calvin was even born.

---

Tetzel was the real monster!

---

He was a doozy. He really made God into a monster. And personified that himself. As AW Tozer said "whatever a man thinks about when he thinks about God defines his character". Or something like that.

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Why do you constantly call me a Calvinist? I'm Anglican. Yes, we believe some of what he taught, but that's theology. We build ours off of a tradition, not one man. And he wasn't this boogie man you make him out to be. Maybe you just like putting people in these theological camps so it's easier for you to call them monsters? Guess what, a LOT of theologians believed in the type of election you despise before Calvin was even born.

---

Fair enough. I apologize.

Do Anglicans think it is a sin to ask me the same question over and over again in this thread in an attempt to make a brother in Christ sin?

And unless you find where I called God a monster unless linked with Calvinism and specifically the doctrine of double pre destination my offer stands.

Do you consider it a sin to bear false witness?

And curious, does the Anglican Church believes God causes cancer and sickness? Or allows them for His greater purpose? Do y'all believe in double pre destination?

---

We use the Book of Common Prayer in conjunction with the Bible, in which you can find the articles of faith. Someone posted it here earlier in the thread as one pertains to predestination in what appeared to be some sort of 'gotcha'. There are different revisions to the BCP depending on which branch you're in.

If you re-read the article from the last page or two, you'll see all things are kept in relation to the Bible and should not contradict it. They're consistent with what I've been posting.

---

Agree and have no problem with anything you have posted. As I have told you, I read the BCP. Not as faithfully as I used but will restart.
And I have a lot of Anglican friends. They do not treat me like one poster on here. We may disagree but there is not grilling to obtain a desired result, my sin.

---

I was only addressing the last paragraph. The rest should be answered by him. I didn't recall him being Anglican, so news to me.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Don't' Catholics believe you must be baptized to be saved (unless you're ignorant of this need)?

---

We do believe that.

Don't most Protestants believe that a person who says they are saved by faith alone, yet refuses baptism because it's only symbolic, is likely not saved, that thing against the Word? If someone says they are saved through faith yet REFUSES baptism, what do you do with that?

---

It is an interesting question but ultimately most Protestants don't believe baptism to be salvific. What we would do with that is encourage baptism as it is commanded.

---

And if you knowingly choose to disobey that commandment? Does God say "never mind, you didn't really have to do that"?

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Why do you constantly call me a Calvinist? I'm Anglican. Yes, we believe some of what he taught, but that's theology. We build ours off of a tradition, not one man. And he wasn't this boogie man you make him out to be. Maybe you just like putting people in these theological camps so it's easier for you to call them monsters? Guess what, a LOT of theologians believed in the type of election you despise before Calvin was even born.

---

Fair enough. I apologize.

Do Anglicans think it is a sin to ask me the same question over and over again in this thread in an attempt to make a brother in Christ sin?

And unless you find where I called God a monster unless linked with Calvinism and specifically the doctrine of double pre destination my offer stands.

Do you consider it a sin to bear false witness?

And curious, does the Anglican Church believes God causes cancer and sickness? Or allows them for His greater purpose? Do y'all believe in double pre destination?

---

I kept quoting it. Not sure why there's confusion. https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3516422/replies/69270587

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Zobel said:

---

what you're showing is the product of the protestant desire to systematize salvation which inevitably leads to strip ping it to only what is deemed essential - spiritual minimalism, which is spiritual poverty.

baptism is not a 'step' or a 'box to check' because there's not an algorithm or flow chart to salvation. you don't check a minimum number of boxes, or score a certain number of points. this kind of thinking is completely foreign to the scriptures.

instead we are called over and over again to be obedient - to the Lord, to His commandments, to our spiritual leaders and teachers. and we are called over and over again to be faithful to Christ. those two things are one and the same - one cannot be faithful and disobedient, or obedient and faithless. As St Paul puts it, the only thing that counts is faithfulness working through love.

we don't get to handwave things away because they are hard, or say it is worse to be disobedient when something is easy. the commandment of our God is clear - "be Holy, because I am holy" - "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" - "you must be blameless before Yahweh your God" - "Walk before me and be blameless"- "this commandment I command to you is not too hard, neither is it far off" - "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" - "this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome" - whoever has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me."

If there is something where you are not obeying... stop! immediately! and repent.

because that's what faithfulness is. that's what is salvific, faithfulness to the Messiah is what saves you. as long as you are faithful, you are obedient, and that includes all of the good works and any checkbox you might do. this is exactly the message of St Paul to non-Jewish Christians about the Torah. if you obey Jesus the Messiah in faithfulness, and are obedient to the Holy Spirit, you will not only not break the commandments of the Torah but you will fulfill them, fill them up to overflowing.

---

I agree with everything you said and see that is how Protestants believe; Catholicism seems very perfunctory. I see you're saying it's not, but I think that's how most non-Catholics view it and is likely a main reason as to why they are evangelized to.

It seems evident there are true believers and saved individuals in both houses (Protestant and Catholicism) but the ones who think they are saved and are not, the hypocrites and posers, the ones who don't really understand the scriptures, they are the ones who make the other side believe that house is in the wrong altogether.

---

I was a 'non-Catholic' for a long time (S. Baptist) and I was 'taught' that baptism in scripture was salvific. What I realized much later was that I depended on someone else's reading of scripture in their context. After a much deeper dive, prayer, and consulting the Church fathers, I realized that baptism being salvific was the original belief and the other a later change. This doesn't mean that a baby, child, adult who wasn't able to be baptized isn't saved, but if they have the means (as 99% do) then we are required. Jesus said to be baptized, not just to look cool in front of everyone in the congregation but because it is part of the salvation process. Also, my baptism in the Baptist church was recognized by the RCC when I joined the Church, and they recognize all Christian baptisms if done in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, etc. My education and participation in the sacraments of the RCC was far far from perfunctory and it took me 5 years of discerning the change., So please don't assume for the entire Church what anecdotal experience you have watching Catholics. Just like protestants, there are those that practice faithfully, and those that aren't representative sometimes of what that means.

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.

---

And as a doctor, your link drives me crazy. I believe God allows diseases and cancer for His own purposes which are always good. But to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster. Sorry but He is love.
And John Piper drives me nuts. If he came into my patient's room and started saying God gave my patient cancer to make him repent, I would kick him out of the room.
And I get how this life is temporal and short. And that we focus on eternal life which gives us hope. The question is always about the character of God.

Jesus is the revelation of God. He always healed. And accepted everyone. The only people He chastised were the religious leaders who ironically thought they were the "elect" because of their being devout Jews. Seems eerily similar.

Rant over.

---

I said if God actively causes diseases it makes him into a monster. I stand.by that. And that is a theological thought. I disagree with that theology because God is not a monster. I have never said God is a monster and do not believe He is. Even with you baiting me with numerous attempts to try to make me say he is and sin. May I ask why you did that?

Maybe we are simply having a lack of communication. I do not know. I answered all your questions. Will you answer mine?

Is Jesus the revelation of God and His character?

Did Jesus ever do anything but heal?

Merry Christmas!

BluHorseShu said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Don't' Catholics believe you must be baptized to be saved (unless you're ignorant of this need)?

---

We do believe that.

Don't most Protestants believe that a person who says they are saved by faith alone, yet refuses baptism because it's only symbolic, is likely not saved, that thing against the Word? If someone says they are saved through faith yet REFUSES baptism, what do you do with that?

---

It is an interesting question but ultimately most Protestants don't believe baptism to be salvific. What we would do with that is encourage baptism as it is commanded.

---

And if you knowingly choose to disobey that commandment? Does God say "never mind, you didn't really have to do that"?

---

From what I understand and believe, we will all need to answer for all the ways we have disobeyed Christ. Baptism included.

dermdoc 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.

---

And as a doctor, your link drives me crazy. I believe God allows diseases and cancer for His own purposes which are always good. But to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster. Sorry but He is love.
And John Piper drives me nuts. If he came into my patient's room and started saying God gave my patient cancer to make him repent, I would kick him out of the room.
And I get how this life is temporal and short. And that we focus on eternal life which gives us hope. The question is always about the character of God.

Jesus is the revelation of God. He always healed. And accepted everyone. The only people He chastised were the religious leaders who ironically thought they were the "elect" because of their being devout Jews. Seems eerily similar.

Rant over.

---

I said if God actively causes diseases it makes him into a monster. I stand.by that.

---

No you don't. Here you agreed with this amended statement:
God actively giving a person cancer does not make him a monster, but he doesn't do that anymore.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3516422/replies/69271354

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc 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.

---

And as a doctor, your link drives me crazy. I believe God allows diseases and cancer for His own purposes which are always good. But to say God actively gives a person cancer makes God into a monster. Sorry but He is love.
And John Piper drives me nuts. If he came into my patient's room and started saying God gave my patient cancer to make him repent, I would kick him out of the room.
And I get how this life is temporal and short. And that we focus on eternal life which gives us hope. The question is always about the character of God.

Jesus is the revelation of God. He always healed. And accepted everyone. The only people He chastised were the religious leaders who ironically thought they were the "elect" because of their being devout Jews. Seems eerily similar.

Rant over.

---

I said if God actively causes diseases it makes him into a monster. I stand.by that.

---

No you don't. Here you agreed with this amended statement:
God actively giving a person cancer does not make him a monster, but he doesn't do that anymore.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3516422/replies/69271354

---

And I agree with what I said. Look, however hard you try to entrap me I have never said God is a monster. I have said I believe certain theologies make him a monster. Totally different thing.

The Jews were under a different covenant. Scripture clearly states that God gave them diseases and death. Under that covenant He was not a monster. He was sovereign God.

Jesus changed everything and we are under a new covenant where I do not believe God actively causes disease. We are under grace. So yes, I believe if you say under the new covenant that God actively causes diseases, then you are incorrect and making Him into a monster.

And God has not changed. His covenant and relationship with us has changed.

I think there is a lack of communication on my part. I love you as a brother in Christ and do not understand the grilling and hostility.

I'm not trying to grill or be hostile. Your words are just illogical.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'm not trying to grill or be hostile. Your words are just illogical.

---

Not to me, my friend. And maybe I am illogical when I look back through this thread and how many times you asked me the same question in different ways about did I think God was a monster and I repeatedly answered No. What was your intent after I answered No the first time?

Maybe you and I have have different interpretations of grilling.

And can you answer the two questions I have asked you numerous times. I was always courteous enough to answer you.

Thanks and Merry Christmas!

No to muddy up the waters further, but reformed theology would teach there are two covenants....the Covenant of Works with Adam and then the Covenant of Grace, which occurred after Adam failed to uphold the Covenant of Works.

https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/what-covenant-grace

Would we even have death/cancer if Adam didn't sin?

aggiedata said:

---

Would we even have death/cancer if Adam didn't sin?

---

No.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

No to muddy up the waters further, but reformed theology would teach there are two covenants....the Covenant of Works with Adam and then the Covenant of Grace, which occurred after Adam failed to uphold the Covenant of Works.

https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/what-covenant-grace

---

Agree. Christ completely changed everything especially with our relationship with God. Not to quibble, but I would call it a covenant of the law and the second being the covenant of grace.

The law demands retribution which God did under the old covenant. Grace is totally different.

dermdoc said:

---

aggiedata said:

---

Would we even have death/cancer if Adam didn't sin?

---

No.

---

Well that was easy.

aggiedata said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

aggiedata said:

---

Would we even have death/cancer if Adam didn't sin?

---

No.

---

Well that was easy.

---

You may have noted I am fairly strong in my opinions,

dermdoc said:

---

aggiedata said:

---

Would we even have death/cancer if Adam didn't sin?

---

No.

---

I am sure someone would have dropped the ball before it got to us.

I'm late to this conversation but it's best to not talk to people like that.

I used to engage those types of people and now I don't. I don't care what they believe or what they choose to do with themselves.

Much better…. It's better for you, less argument and division and you focus on the people you can help who are open to the truth.

It's why I haven't posted on this board in months.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I'm late to this conversation but it's best to not talk to people like that.

I used to engage those types of people and now I don't. I don't care what they believe or what they choose to do with themselves.

Much better…. It's better for you, less argument and division and you focus on the people you can help who are open to the truth.

It's why I haven't posted on this board in months.

---

Good morning and good advice.

I am leaving for a while also and focusing on the good God who loves everybody and following my Savior's command to love God and my neighbor (which the parable of the Good Samaritan clearly shows is everyone).
And of course my family
We serve a gracious, loving, and merciful God! Praise the Lord!

Merry Christmas!

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Well, one our elders (Reformed Baptist Church) as well as my father who is mostly reformed both believe the RCC follows a false gospel, after spending much of their own lives in the RCC. My father has said the Gospel was never preached in his parochial school upbringing at St. Jerome's in Chicago. After moving to Houston, the things he was introduced to at our Bible Church growing up were completely new to him. So, that would be the reason why there might be an emphasis.

Edit to add - don't think many interact with Jewish folks on a day to day basis. Myself included.

---

Not having the gospel taught to you =\= follow a false gospel. Not saying this is what you believe, but I know a lot of former Catholics do. As a former, former Catholic myself, I know I thought that way. Then I finally ran into a. Knowledgable Catholic that answered my questions, and I went right back to the Catholic Church.

It's amazing how poorly Catholics catechize kids. It needs to be reformed immediately

---

Catholism has always been a strange mystery to me, but I always felt that was the one thing they did well that us baptists did not.

ETA I did not realize I was on page 1 of 12 when I quoted that.... I'll go back to reading the other 11 pages now

waco_aggie05 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Well, one our elders (Reformed Baptist Church) as well as my father who is mostly reformed both believe the RCC follows a false gospel, after spending much of their own lives in the RCC. My father has said the Gospel was never preached in his parochial school upbringing at St. Jerome's in Chicago. After moving to Houston, the things he was introduced to at our Bible Church growing up were completely new to him. So, that would be the reason why there might be an emphasis.

Edit to add - don't think many interact with Jewish folks on a day to day basis. Myself included.

---

Not having the gospel taught to you =\= follow a false gospel. Not saying this is what you believe, but I know a lot of former Catholics do. As a former, former Catholic myself, I know I thought that way. Then I finally ran into a. Knowledgable Catholic that answered my questions, and I went right back to the Catholic Church.

It's amazing how poorly Catholics catechize kids. It needs to be reformed immediately

---

Catholism has always been a strange mystery to me, but I always felt that was the one thing they did well that us baptists did not.

ETA I did not realize I was on page 1 of 12 when I quoted that.... I'll go back to reading the other 11 pages now

---

Then good on the families you know. Hopefully that becomes a trend