ok so you dont want to answer the question so ill tell you - God sent the flood and lots of seven year olds and babes and infants and old people and young died

why ? because violence and wickedness covered the earth

so you can get all indignant about that if you want but God still did it.
wether you like it or not wether you agree or not means nothing, nada, zero, zilch, your judgement and mine are less than nothing in the sovreign Gods masterful purposes and divine genius. You could save your indignation for the temporal authorities who allow these filth to walk the streets.

looking around me i would say God was well angry including your repeated (and emotive) reference to the raped yougster -i think its a tactic called 'elephant hurling'

this assesment by the creature does not factor in the big picture since we know nothing of it yet they confidently classify events from the 'worms eye view'

being a sinner and dying a sinner is not the purpose of the whole of mankind but it is for most the exception being the elect. It does not alter the fact that sin is still sin

atonement and sanctification are necessary for the elect but not for the reprobate

niether the sin of the elect or the reprobate are acceptable before God but for the elect he promises for the sake of the son not to see it

because God chooses to bring some to saving faith does not make unbelief acceptable in the reprobate, its still a sin

interesting quote from calvin i wouldnt want to try it but i would agree with the notion that a bold sinner saved has a clearer notion of his degeneracy and good fourtune than otherwise

David had a lot of struggle in his life and big ups and downs and if he had avoided them by say drugs or alchohol then we may not have had the psalms but being a brave man he soldiers on thru the storms and cleaved to his God, did you know that david will be king of Israel in the millenia when Jesus rules the world from Jerusalem ? So we will almost certainly meet him unless our duties keep us elsewhere but there will be 1000 yrs so i think we can be sure to see him at some point

ditto yourself john, its a genuine question have you never wondered if in the original creation we could speak to the animals ? I have
after all there is balems ass and the serpent in the garden

God does speak to us through the creation its the 67 th book of the bible - he speaks to men in language they can understand, sometimes in fear - battle, earthquakes, storm, most often thru the order and design in nature, in our daily observation 'god may be known by the things that are made ' and of course the word

John UK wrote:
Quite, God spoke to me through a moth once.

Candle Lit wrote:
We wouldn't have the Psalms if David had been on anti-depressants! I'm being absurd, to make a point.
But, your point is well taken!
God communicates with us in terms which we understand for our good.

i see where you are coming from mike but my thinking is not postmodernist - heavan forbid that i would use those foolish worldly systems of thought.

I am not dismissing their argument on the grounds of semantics but describing how they are reframing mine or forging it if you like in order to claim it as false

The bible teaches that in God there is no bad thing and it also teaches that he is totaly sovreign - some of the brethren have difficulty in reconciling the outworkings of Gods judgement (the shooter - global flood killing millions - forthcoming apocalypse likewise to kill millions ) with their idea of a good God as they tell me that these things are bad so their answer to the conundrum is that God did not do it. However this denies Gods sovreignty and is therefore unbiblical

my proposition is that since scripturs cannot contradict itself there must be some fault in their understanding.

for myself i am at times encouraged by the signs of Gods judgement and they cause me to meditate on Gods purposes and His dealings with men, other times i am downcast when he chastises me

John UK wrote:
Alas, it is not being worked out.

first they describe these things as bad - their argument not mine, i say they are good. then having framed my argument in their terms they say that to attribute these 'bad ' things to God is to impugn Gods 'goodness' as defined by themselves. a false and circular argument

we dont have any problem ascribing to Gods providence to the 'good ' things' so why exempt the 'bad ' things ?

Nothing God does is bad only faulty understanding considers such a proposition

is God to be sovreign only when it suits us ?

isaiah 53
He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

The work of the cross was Gods will

Michael Hranek wrote:
charles m
As to tolerance I believe it is safe to say that God who desires none to perish tolerates a lot of self-righteous religious hypocrits who even attribute sending evil, I am not saying sending judgment such as in Noah's day, but attributing SENDING evil to Him.

that is itself a convincing line in self righteousness and hypocrisy.

you misrepresent God by falsely claiming a distinction between the jusgement of the flood and the judgement of the shooter without even attempting to ask yourself why this mode of judgment might be appropriate.

you slander another believer by infering he is a callous false prophet. If you attempt to explain this incident as anything other than a judgement then it is You who are a false teacher

It always makes self righteous people feel good when they think they have found someone worse than themselves, i dont have any problem there michael, i dont Have any righteousness.

Our lawless society tolerates their existence and moreover encourages all manner of wickedness - the people who died at the hands of the shooter reaped what they sowed -

want to make a moral judgement on God michael ?

God is angry every day with your filthy degenerate society and mine - it is just that he send punishment

What you gonna say he didnt send the flood or that he shouldnt have ? You dont think He should have - are you saying God does bad things ?

what about killing all the first born of egypt - naughty God is that what you mean ? just cos you dont think its nice ?

Michael Hranek wrote:
charles m
Don't you think it is a wee bit self-righteous to post such a thing as if Calvinists are so above and better than ever sinning against God themselves.
And as if no Calvinist would ever abandon Christ for the woman who rides the beast would they.

would any one who is in the truth go to the RC from the baptists ? unless of course they didnt have the truth in the first place

newt may yet be one of the elect but at the moment i think its fair to say that he has some doctrinal issues to whit not seeing a saving difference between the two churches - you know what ? thats maybe because there isnt in which case he is being consistent,

i dont blame any man for being misled - if you arent one of the elect then thats what is going to happen for sure, nothing you can do about it

DJC49 wrote:
Nothing happens in God's creation without His either ordaining or permitting. NOTHING happens -- from the subatomic to the astronomical; neither visible nor invisible -- which is independent and outside of God's purview and decree. NOTHING happens or exists without God first declaring: "Let there be ..."

i used to have a humanist view of the gospel but ive changed sides, the unsaved person is the enemy of my master (not my enemy) and they need to know that so that they can take the neccesary measures so that gods wrath does not abide upon them.

Candle Lit wrote:
Hi, Charles m.,
You sound like a real Jeremiah Johnson

JM has been very helpfull providentialy i hooked into it the very week that he made the sermons free

he has a tremendous desire for learning