Why does God call people to repentence?

Really?

1) Jesus was killed (crucified on a cross).
2) Jesus was innocent of any wrondoing.
3) His death was intentional.
4) God was behind it all (Acts 4:27).

So which heresy do you hold that goes against that?
Are you denying that Jesus died, that He was killed?
Are you denying that His death was intentional?
Are you claiming that Jesus was not innocent, but a sinner?



Wrong again.

We don't interpret Scripture according to our theology.
We get our theology FROM what the Bible teaches.
So can you confirm God murdered his son, yes or no?
 
Does God want all people to repent and believe in him, does he command it?

Believing begins in God and is how He creates children in His image. And if one chooses not to believe; unbelief, then they have chosen for themselves their own demise and are not counted amongst His children.

If the answer is no, please explain why God commands something he doesn't want to happen?

If Christ believed, then God provided to everyone the means by which to know Him.

If the answer is yes, then he must want all people to be saved,

Everyone who believes God has drawn.

if he wants ALL people to repent and believe, what other purpose can there be for it?

But everyone who believes is saved.

`And as Moses did lift up the serpent in the wilderness, so it behoveth the Son of Man to be lifted up, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during, for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him; he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
`And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil; for every one who is doing wicked things hateth the light, and doth not come unto the light, that his works may not be detected; but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.' (John 3:14-21)
 
Reading this parable from Jesus, can we trust this parable that God is telling us? Who murdered the heir, ie, the son, was it the father?

He didn't tell us that in this parable, but he DID tell us that in Acts 4:27-28.

The reason you hold to a false theology is that you pick and choose which verses to accept, and which verses to reject (such as Acts 4:27-28).

Another reason that you hold to a false theology is that you engage in faulty rationalizations, which you call "logic"..

This parable correctly recognizes that men killed the Son. This is a representation that the Jews and the Romans, along with Pilate and Herod, killed Jesus. But the parable does NOT say, "But the Father didn't murder the son". You ASSUME that. You ASSUME that it is "either/or", and not "both/and". Further, you don't seem to understand that parables are designed to teach ONE doctrinal point, not an entire theology.

But the Bible teaches something we call "compatibilism", which ReverendRV has explained to you a few times lately.

Jesus is God, but Jesus is also man.
Compatibilism.

God is one, but God is three persons.
Compatibilism.

God was behind Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt.
But Joseph's brothers were behind it (Gen. 50:20).
Compatibilism.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart.
And Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 4-8).
Compatibilism.

Assyria waged war against Israel (Isa. 10:5-7)
And it was God who wielded Assyria like a club.
Compatibilism.

Satan told David to number Israel (1 Chr. 21:1).
But God told David to number Israel (2 Sam. 24:1).
Compatibilism.

The Jews and Romans murdered Jesus (Acts 4:27-28).
But God was behind it all.
Compatibilism.

You deny Scripture (Acts 4:27-28), because it contradicts your "fluffy" belief of a "Barney-the Dinosaur" god.

Who is the father, who is the son in this you think? Please tell cookedgoose, they need to know, because calling God a murderer is not only not biblical, it's blasphemous.

We already know.
It is you who is rejecting Scripture.
Which is why you really need to lose the condescending attitude.
 
Last edited:
So can you confirm God murdered his son, yes or no?

I would not word it that way, no.
Since murder is a sin, and God does not sin.

But as we've explained to you time after time after time after time after time (you really need to pay attention, it would save us having to repeat ourselves over and over), "evil" (such as murder) is not determined by the act, it's determined by the INTENT.

Did you read my other post that you (conveniently) didn't respond to, where I ask if it is evil for a man to stick a knife in another man's chest? It depends on the INTENT.

No, God did not commit the "sin" of murder, but He was behind the death of the innocent Son. But as we also read in Gen. 50:20, "God intended it for good".

Or do you think it "evil" that Christ's blood saves sinners?
 
I would not word it that way, no.
Right so cookedgoose is wrong, thank you, for your honesty.
Since murder is a sin, and God does not sin.
Agreed, you see we can agree on some things.
But as we've explained to you time after time after time after time after time (you really need to pay attention, it would save us having to repeat ourselves over and over), "evil" (such as murder) is not determined by the act, it's determined by the INTENT.
You just pointed out cooked goose was wrong and I was right, so why explain to me, shouldn't you explain that to cookedgoose?
Did you read my other post that you (conveniently) didn't respond to, where I ask if it is evil for a man to stick a knife in another man's chest? It depends on the INTENT.
I didn't, no, I can't read every post, there are so many and I am busy today, flipping here and there.
No, God did not commit the "sin" of murder, but He was behind the death of the innocent Son.
Well we are agreed then he did not murder him, that was the choice of those that did it, God foreknew that would happen, yes.
But as we also read in Gen. 50:20, "God intended it for good".
God does not do evil, only good, because God is good and only God is good, Jesus said so.
Or do you think it "evil" that Christ's blood saves sinners?
God doesn't save sinners according to Calvinists, he only saves the elect, sinners would cover everyone, would it not?
 
But as we've explained to you time after time after time after time after time (you really need to pay attention, it would save us having to repeat ourselves over and over), "evil" (such as murder) is not determined by the act, it's determined by the INTENT.
Exactly!
It's intent that produces culpability, and since God "intended it for good" He can't be held culpable.
It's why He's not the "author of sin" as is parroted around here so often.
 
Right so cookedgoose is wrong, thank you, for your honesty.
Yes, Cookedgoose definately did not say that correctly and wishes to "edit" the statement slightly.
To hand Jesus over "for the intent of good" is not murder, even though the outcome was fully known by God and even "intended" by God.

If God had handed Jesus over for the "intent of bad" it would absolutely be murder. Genesis 50/20 is a crucially important verse in scripture, legally speaking.
 
Believing begins in God and is how He creates children in His image. And if one chooses not to believe; unbelief, then they have chosen for themselves their own demise and are not counted amongst His children.
Are you a Calvinist, if you are, that is a strange thing to say, isn't it?
If Christ believed, then God provided to everyone the means by which to know Him.
Who did Jesus say he came for? Luke 5:32, but why, who does sinners cover, everyone who are sinners or just the elect?
Everyone who believes God has drawn.
We can agree on that.
But everyone who believes is saved.
Agreed.
`And as Moses did lift up the serpent in the wilderness, so it behoveth the Son of Man to be lifted up, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during, for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him; he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
`And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil; for every one who is doing wicked things hateth the light, and doth not come unto the light, that his works may not be detected; but he who is doing the truth doth come to the light, that his works may be manifested, that in God they are having been wrought.' (John 3:14-21)
Did people have a choice to look upon the serpent in the wilderness and be healed and if so why can't they also look upon Gods son, if God draws them, but if the seed, the word of God does not take root, how then can God nurture the seed and draw them to Christ? Is it God who is unwilling? 2 Peter 3:9
 
So obey Gods commands, it's a sin not to, agreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.

There was never any issue about that.

So God breaks his own commandment if he doesn't want everyone to repent.

I'm not sure what you're referring to.
What "commandment" do you think God is breaking?
And even if He did, what makes you think God is bound to obey the commandments He gives to man?
I'm guessing your not a parent. If you had a child with a bed-time of 8:00, does that mean YOU have to obey the rule of "bed-time at 8:00"?

he This is calvinsim over rulling Gods word, you can clearly see a clear bible truth being disregarded for calvinism here.

You haven't demonstrated any such thing.
And I'm not sure what "rulling" is. It's not in any dictionary I can find.

When God gives a commandment he wants you to obey, period.

I would reword that as, "When God gives a commandment we are obligated to obey it".

God does not have a split personality disorder, he is not a God of confusion. 1 Corinthians 14:33.

We don't believe God has a "split personalitiy disorder", and we agree God is not a God of confusion.
That's why we reject your false theology.

And here is something for you to consider DEEPLY. Not only is your theology unBiblical, but why would you expect us to reject Calvinism over your false theology when it clearly leads to sinful behaviour such as the insults you wield above?

"You will know them by their fruits".

He is not a God of lawlessness,

Amen!

that is satan, but calvinism renders him out to be one,

No, it doesn't.

who appears to suffer from Schizophrenia. He is not double minded.

More childish insults.
And if you want to be insulting, please at least LEARN what the words you're using mean.
"Schizophrenia" does NOT mean "double minded", or "muitiple personality disorder".

So he must love everyone than, thanks for confirming this,

Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion, but whatever.

now maybe you should reject Calvinism.

Why would we reject Biblical truth in favour of your false teachings?

If that were the case when he tells us we should repent, how are we supposed to know what he wants us to do,

If He gives us commands, we are to obey them.
It's not really a difficult concept to understand.

is God a God of confusion?

Of course not.
But thank you for the insults.

Your theology is flawed,

No, actually it's not.

cavinism makes a mockery of the word of God,

No, actually, it doesn't.
YOU "make a mockery of the word of God".

you should reject it and repent, IMO.

No, YOU should reject your theology and repent.

Why do you think we should reject the Bible, just because some anonymous yahoo on the Internet who doesn't even understand it doesn't like it and likes to insult us? That's not a sufficient reason for us to reject God's truth.
 
I want lots of things, like you giving up Calvinism because it's theology is flawed, but I am not getting it and may never get it, but I still want it.

Why do you want to control what others believe?
Don't you believe we have "free will" to believe whatever we want?

And why is it okay for YOU to want to control others,
but not okay for GOD to want to control HIS OWN CREATION?
Double standards much?

Did God want Adam and Eve to break his commandment?

Of course.

If you say no, well God didn't get what he wanted there.

I guess you missed the part where I DIDN'T say "no".

So why do you insist because God doesn't get all that he wants, he must not want everyone to repent and be saved?

Well, first of all, the Bible never TEACHES that "God wants everyone to be saved".
Second, we know that not all are saved.
So what prevented God from getting what He wanted?

God has said they refused to receive love of the truth and be saved,

Where did God say that?
I checked three translations (ESV, NET, KJV) and NONE of them say, "refused".

not that God didn't want them to be saved,

This is a fallacious argument from silence.
It does NOT say, "God did want them to be saved".
You are ASSUMING an "either/or" situation, that "if" man was the one refusing, then God couldn't have caused it. But we reject your rationalization.

they refused God, because they loved their sin. 2 Thessalonians 2:10, is God lying here, that wasn't the reason why people perish. Is God a God of deception?

<sigh>
No, God is not a god of deception.
No, God never lies.

But what you don't seem to understand is that YOU are NOT God.
Your interpretation of Scriptrure is not inerrant and infallible.
 
Is it possible that you are understanding scripture based on the doctrines of Calvinism? What if the doctrines of Calvinism are flawed?

Since I was a rabid anti-Calvinist when the BIBLE convinced me that I was wrong, and that Calvinism was true, I would have to say no.

How about you?

I sit poassible that YOU are understanding scripture based on the doctrines of Arminianism? What if the doctrines of Arminianism are flawed?
 
Yes, Cookedgoose definately did not say that correctly and wishes to "edit" the statement slightly.
To hand Jesus over "for the intent of good" is not murder, even though the outcome was fully known by God and even "intended" by God.
God knew what they would do, no question.
If God had handed Jesus over for the "intent of bad" it would absolutely be murder. Genesis 50/20 is a crucially important verse in scripture, legally speaking.
We all slip up, nothing to worry about, I have done it. We are all passionate about what we believe, are we not?
 
God knew what they would do, no question.

We all slip up, nothing to worry about, I have done it. We are all passionate about what we believe, are we not?
Yes, God knew what they would do. But it's why you need to Conflate it with God Knowing what Joseph's brothers would do to him; and God not being Culpable for that...

Though God Meant it to happen...

Look, all you are doing is giving us the opportunity to explain these things to the Lurkers; thank you. We would love it if you would give the obvious inch though...
 
Back
Top