Ngamini Gatimu

I’d argue that the telos of government is as follows: Humans have natural rights. A right to life. A right to liberty. And a right to the pursuit of happiness. Those rights aren’t given to us. Those rights are ours, they come from God, just because we are human. No other reason. Government exists to secure those rights. A Government’s job is to promote an environment where we can live out our rights to life, liberty and property and protect us from threats (foreign or domestic) that would block us from living our rights. In other words, To promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense.

Are you not aware that in Hebrew, the phrase “son of” something, can refer to the actual entity. For example the sons of the prophets are the prophets. The Daughter of Zion in the Prophetic literature is Zion. The children of Israel are Israel. I’m not going to spend more time arguing with you if you’re going to change the meanings of words to justify your system. We’re done here. God bless

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor "And yet He longed to gather them together. But they were not willing" Here you are not just missing the text, but contradicting it. He longed to gather their CHILDREN. But they, the Jewish leadeds, were unwilling to allow Him.

I think that the only logical end in Calvinism is that God must be the author of evil, because if He controls every atom and makes every event happen, then only He could her created it. However I also don’t think Calvinists believe that. Many are loving, caring servants of God and they won’t bend to the world. But to me; there’s no way of denying that God loves us all, and that we are given the choice to accept Him. The early church believed the same. That said, predestination is accepted by all churches. It’s just that most don’t agree with Calvinistic predestination. It’s accepted more as a mystery we don’t understand, but not as proof that God only loves some or that people are created for damnation. So again it’s not that people deny God’s power or predestination; they merely deny Calvin’s definition of those terms.

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor The leaders who were representing the nation, correct? Also good job ignoring the point that it was their choice that damned them

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor "Jesus is talking about the rebellious Jewish nation" Wrong. He is talking about the Jewish leaders specifically. That much is crystal clear.

I’m not your buddy. Don’t be familiar with me, we don’t know each other. This is the full passage: ““You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation. “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”” Matthew 23:33-39 Jesus is talking about the rebellious Jewish nation. The nation that killed the prophets, and was about to kill Him. And yet He longed to gather them together. But they were not willing. Their choice damned them.

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor Buddy Ive read Geisler, I have an answer for Matthew 23, once again its context that is your interpretation's kryptonite. Who is "Jerusalem" in this passage? And who does Christ say He wanted to gather?

“Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as one for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.” Philippians 1:27-30 You were saying?

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor Philippians 1:29 doesnt only talk about trials and you know it

Philippians 1:29 teaches that God sends trials into the lives of believers. Am I supposed to be stumped by this? Also again, your silence is deafening. You don’t have an answer for this passage so you’re just stalling for time. For that matter you haven’t even touched on 2 Peter 2:1 which says God bought false teachers. Dealing a death blow to limited atonement. I’ve given you my answer on 2 Peter 3:8-9. “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” - 2 Peter 3:8-9 If I just read that without bias I’d come away with an interpretation that says that Peter is telling the elect that God doesn’t want anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance and be saved. You can call them proof texts all you want. I call them the Word of God. And as a Christian I am bound to submit to Scripture. That’s why I left Calvinism. I used to be an ardent Calvinist. I’ve read Calvinist theologians, from Calvin on down. I rejected that system out of a desire to submit to Scripture.

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor No, I'll get there when you can demonstrate an honest willingness to let the text speak for itself without carrying in your synergist presuppositions. The fact you can't do that for 2 Peter 3:8-9 shows so far you cannot. If we are playing the prooftext game, address Phil 1:29

Tylenol in pregnancy is not linked with autism, a nationwide Danish study finds. reuters.com/business/healt…

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor You’re dodging the Matthew passage because it is a dagger through the heart of Calvinism. Your silence is telling.

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor Arguing two separate verses from both testaments simultaneously isnt enough? See this is why Calvinists get tired of trying to engage in the prooftext shotgun style of eisegesis synergists spout. Its too similar of the same 500 year debunked prooftext apologetics of Rome.

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor You still dodge my question about Matthew 23:37-39. And you never actually said what grounds you have for saying I’m an Arminian. You have no idea what my theological beliefs are precisely. Or whether I agree with the Remonstrance of the original Arminians.

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor It should have been enough to understand that certain nuances need to be applied to OT prophecy, especially in making didactic teaching about the nature of God.

@TheMuppetPastor @iamalsomrbloo @BahBahBased Honestly man I commend you for taking time to argue with Calvinists. I’ve long since given up the practice, tho I did relapse tonight haha

@iamalsomrbloo @BahBahBased No, it’s a failure to interpret scripture the same way you do. 1 John 2:2 already explains Jesus did for everyone in the world, and I’d have to deny that to be a Calvinist.

Cult is a very strong word. No, it’s unfair to call Calvinists a cult. I have seen Godly fruit from Calvinists as well, and I know they love Jesus. I have my disagreements with their theology and I often think the Bible says many things to refute it, but I am not God and I merely trust Him to save us despite our limited interpretations.

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor When I affirmed that Jesus was the Son of God and yet died (a human act), that should have been enough for a logical person to understand that I wasn’t affirming heresy

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor You may not believe it but inaccurate language certainly implied it right here: x.com/Ngamini2004/st…

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor Where did I say this means all creatures without exception? I never said that. You just read that into what I said. You already have a concept of who you’re arguing with. Drop that. I’m a real person and I speak for myself

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor You: God isn't pleased to crush anyone (implying this means all without exception) Me: proves He is pleased to crush at least one person You, moving the goalpost: I meant mere humans that aren't this one person! Or unregenerates.

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor Don’t slander me. I never once implied Jesus was not human. Don’t commit the sin of bearing false witness as you try to erect defenses for Calvinism out of thin air

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor You, anyone, everyone.... Literally all the same subject in that sentence. You have a poor understanding of Grammar, which is how you just a second ago implied Jesus wasn't a human

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor What nuances have I added? I’m just taking the text literally

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor Ah so now you are adding nuances and qualifiers to your Ezekiel prooftext to fit your system. So much for biblicism

What makes you think I’m an Arminian? Also I’m just taking the text literally, it is you who is allegorizing it to fit your worldview. Also you never answered my question about Matthew 23:37-39. If monergism is true, why was Christ weeping that Jerusalem was lost? Could He not have just overridden their free will and saved them?

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor Verse 9 follows verse 8. See what I mean when I said Arminian prooftexts are always refuted within the surrounding context?

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor Jesus was truly man and truly God. He was not a mere man and was certainly not an unregenerate man. I’m not a Mormon

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor Was His son not human? Like honestly I'm really surprised you went from 0 to gnostic, maybe you want to rephrase?

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor But the phrase “any of you” isn’t in the text, you added it and are asking me to assume that’s what he meant. Because it fits your system

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor YOU. He is saying ANY OF YOU. "Y'all"

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor Then why didn’t Peter say that God didn’t want them to perish? Why use the word anyone? See what I mean when I say Calvinism asks us to suspend disbelief?

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor Literally one verse prior, where the subject of the admonition is given: dear friends. Also the entire part of the chapter preceding that, where scoffers and reprobates are discussed

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor What does God being pleased to crush His Son have to do with His eagerness to crush humans? You are engaged in a category error. Furthermore let me ask you this. If Monergism is true, why was Christ weeping in Matthew 23:37-39?

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor So I just answered the first prooftext doesnt match your understanding with other parts of scripture. Either God contradicts Himself, or He contradicts YOU

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor What’s your exegetical warrant for saying that the word anyone doesn’t mean anyone?

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with YOU, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” who is the YOU? Oh yeah, the ELECT.

@BahBahBased @TheMuppetPastor Yes He was. The Prophet Isaiah said it pleased God to crush His Son. Now answer those passages.

@Ngamini2004 @TheMuppetPastor Was the Lord pleased to Crush His son?