An open challenge to all closed theists

[Rolf Ernst]

How very typical of 1Way--totally ignore the principles of divine justice set forth by Ezekiel and Jer. which, I carefully pointed out, were the same principles which God immutably held to in His dealing with Jonah. I told the forum members in advance that you would learn nothing from it, 1Way and you have proven that you will not repent ofd your erroneous stiff-necked ways.
How you delight in accusing God of repenting contrary to the clear statement from HIMSEF that He does not. How you revel in contradicting Him.
Look at this, everyone--because God held immutably fast to the principles of justice with He had Ezekiel and Jeremiah report, 1Way says he repented or changed. But--1Way would have it both ways, then. If God had NOT held fast to His principles of divine justice, 1Way would have another excuse to taunt--"SEE
God said in Ezekiel and Jeremiah that He would forgive those who turned BUT Nineveh repented and God did NOT FORGIVE and heal them of their backslidings.
I wearied myself to carefully lay that out before the OVers and 1Way cannot even HEAR what I said.
Furthermore, 1Way brings up again the issue of 2Pet.3:9 which I have dealt with at length already. 1Way has a very short memory, I guess.
Let the record be written down for him. I have dealt very thoroughly with sections of scripture which 1Way wanted me to deal with and I have shown in doing so that the Reformed position is the correct position but you can be very certain that the morning sun will rise is total blackness before any Arminian or any OVer will be able to dealt carefully and thoroughly with
Romans 9:14-23. Watch him run now, just as he ran frantically from my suggestion that he show from scripture why his claim that God repents does not conflict with the SCRIPTURE'S statement that God does NOT repent.
Reformed people can deal evenly handed with all of scripture, but certain scriptures are off grounds to Arminians and OVers. For example, ask any of them why Jesus spoke in parables and they will cite a reason absolutely contrary to the reason for speaking in parables which Jesus Himself gave.
There is no reason--absolutely none at all--that I should give anymore of my time to those who are willfully blind, and I won't.
Watch this now--rather than take up his task of explaining Romans 9:14-23 from his perspective, or explaining what the meaning of Jesus' use of parables was, 1Way will just spew more venomous accusations. But the record is on this forum--I have dealt with those verses, and 1Way has NOT dealt with the others.

The verses he obsesses about, I have carefully explained, but the verses he has been challenged on have not been touched upon by him. In one picture, that tells everyone which doctrinal system is scriptural--if they are willing to know the truth

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

rolf,

you said,

How you delight in accusing God of repenting contrary to the clear statement from HIMSEF that He does not. How you revel in contradicting Him.

How do you respond to...

Jeremiah 15:6
15:6 You have forsaken Me," says the Lord, "You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!

...where God says Himself that He does repent?

The passages that say God does not repent have been discussed at length HERE and HERE. God does not repent because of a specific reason in those specific instances.

Good luck,

--Jeremy

 

[1Way]

Rolf – You said

If God had NOT held fast to His principles of divine justice, 1Way would have another excuse to taunt--"SEE God said in Ezekiel and Jeremiah that He would forgive those who turned BUT Nineveh repented and God did NOT FORGIVE and heal them of their backslidings.

You resort to perverting what I say and believe in order to attack me. I understand the truth of the matter according to what I have truthfully said and what God truthfully said, specifically that God repented from doing what He said He would do, namely, God said that “God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.” He did not do as you slanderously imply that he repented from healing their backslidings, nor did I ever suggest that God is unfaithful to His ways. You are a pervert.

You constantly charge me with not being responsive, yet I have been willing to respond since the very beginning of this thread and have been responsive to you in your own thread. Also, although I wish you wont not speak falsely, you did when you said you answered my post #10 from the first page which clearly asks you to point out where you already asked me some questions that you then charged aversion against me, and I also asked you to kindly let me know where you will post your questions so that I may answer them, and you never did either of those things, PLUS I also created a spill over thread for all off topic issues where we could deal with whatever you wanted to, however, instead doing so, you have been simply slandering my person. Here it is for all to see, and I warrant all to check this out for themselves. Here is Rolf’s first false charge of aversion from his post #7.

1Way--again, I have already demonstrated how those verses do not conflict with verses which clearly states God's immutability.

Again, you claim that God is not immutable. I have answered the challenge already. You are the one who has not shown how your stance does not conflict. Can you show cause? I believe you switched the thread because you cannot pick up the gauntlet I cast down in the earlier thread. Go ahead. Pick it up. Pick it up, whippersnap. I reckon as how I'll show you yongsters a thang 'er two.!

I responded his bogus charges willing to meet his challenges, but Rolf never once complied with my response, yet he said He had already answered me which is simply not true.

Rolf – I would gladly respond to your questions as I often have done for others about this same issue, so don’t think that I am "unwilling" or "unable" to do so. Just point me to the location where you already asked me of this sort of thing and I’d be glad to respond in short order. I will not go off topic in this thread. I'm sure you can understand that much. Thanks for your time and thoughtful consideration.

in case you are wondering, first Rolf conveniently ignored my post with his post # 26, then I reminded him of it in my post #27, then in post #36 he says the following, and mind you, there are NO other posts besides these, I covered them all. I add color highlights for emphasis.

I have answered all your objections. You have just not read them or else you have willingly refused to understand. ...

That is Rolf’s version of being responsive to my previous post, what a perversion.

I agree with Jeremy, you have no interest in doing mature intelligent objective bible study, and like I have said several times now, you closed theists don’t mind violating God’s word because of your manmade traditions, so that you treat us egregiously is a natural consequence. I dare so you treat the words of Augustine and his role models Plato and Aristotle with more literal respect than you do God’s word.

Lastly, your a willfully ignorant person on this issue of God’s immutability, Arminians are historically closed theists too, they agree with you Calvinistic Reformer types. But thanks again for showing everyone that personal integrity and upright godly treatment of others is secondary when it comes to slanderously defending your own views.

Lastly, this thread was created to expose the closed theist’s inability to explain the meaning of certain texts that they claim they rightly “understand”. Instead they have proven beyond a doubt that the sort of “understanding” they promote in order to defend their views is literally one of no understanding. No closed theist has even attempted to replace the literal meaning with their so called figurative one. Yet Rolf again perverts against the fact of the matter by suggesting that they have properly exegeted the passages in question. Since when is demonstrating that you have no understanding of what a portion of text means, does that qualify as a proper exegesis?
Yeee haa reformed closed theists, for them, proper exegesis = having no understanding of the text, and same with many many great men of old and renown showing the same glorious tradition of meaningfully voiding God’s word by their manmade tradition.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Acxt9_12Out--concerning your (the 78th) post on this thread.
Both you and 1Way were using for THAT argument a word which is not even in the TEXT of that verse. Both of you were obsessing about choro when the word used in every translation is NOT choro, but choreo.
1Way apologized for the error. That material was left back down the road a long time ago. If you didn't catch it, don't expect me to take you by the hand and go back over it again.

Instead of digging up old carcasses of your errors, why not tackle Romans chapter 9? I told the people on this forum in advance that neither Arminians and OVers would not want to explain how their view of scripture explains Romans 9: 14-23. Sure enough--dead silence from both of you. You just rail at me falsely, saying that I have not answered your points even though I have thoroughly explained Nineveh, 1Tim.2:1-8 and 2Pet. 3:9. I have repeatedly explained how nothing in those texts conflicts with the fact that, as He said, "I am the Lord I change not"
and "The LORD is not a man that He should lie nor a son of man that He should repent."
YOU PEOPLE are the ones who say that there is a contradiction in scripture. Guess what---that is YOUR problem, so rather than rail at me, why don't you two imminent theologians get your heads together and explain how YOUR view of those texts which speak of God repenting do NOT contradict those texts in which God clearly says that He does NOT repent. I have no difficulty with those texts. You all are the ones in a tizzy over them, so deal with your own weaknesses rather than rail at a man who sees no contradiction in Scripture. Of course, I know you would rather rail at the man who has carefully explained them all than try to publicly and openly work your way through Romans 9. See the difference between Reformed and Arminian/OVers? I dealt with the verses openly before the whole forum, but neither of you have dealt with those verses which I suggested that you explain. That SHOULD bother your conscience; but no you just keep throwing up the same type of verses which I have already dealt with whose exegesis is identical to those I have answered before. Look, students, I have cleaned my doorstep very well. When will you begin to sweep your own? I know better than to expect you to deal with verses you find strange.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way just let out another diatribe. Did he explain any verses he has been challenged to explain to show how they fit in his twisted view of scripture? Of course not. He can't. Keep your rant going.
Everybody is watching your conduct. I have dealt fairly and fully with the verses you proposed that I explain. Is that why you attack me?
Instead of railing against others on the forum, why don't you just mind your own business--which would be to explain how your view of scripture does not have severe contradictions in it. We know bettewr than to expect you to get off other's backs to try to resolve the difficulties you have with scripture.
Forgetting your presence on this forum will be a pleasure. If you want to criticise someone, do some self-examination about why you have not bothered to explain Roman 9: 14-23 or what Jesus intended in His use of parables.
The next time you post denunciations of me, EVERYONE on this forum will know you are using time making attacks upon me rather than deal with those texts of scripture which you have refused to consider. 1Way, your posts are so full of doctrinal errors that they are greivous to anyone who understands scripture.

 

[1Way]

Jeremy – While I did not see the movie, which would be more telling than my observations, it is somewhat inconsistent the amount of detail in this little icon. I saved the file and zoomed in on it a bit and I see that

• his fingers show attention to finger nail.
• He has eyebrows and an eyelash line,
• there is a light and dark area in his one open eye,
• cheek to nostril differentiation,
• the wrinkles in his cloths are full of minute details,
• the heart's lace has tiny lace demarkations,

but supposedly his open smiling mouth area is just a solid white topside with lower rounded shading to it. By all these observations, I’d say that it is his tongue sticking out in the now classic homeboy “in the hood” style. But I can see that it is certainly possible that it is just a wide featureless smile with no otherwise consistent detailing, like the simple upper and lower teeth lines, or perhaps some individual teeth markings. Now I’m curious to see the movie, to discern the mystery of the “open featureless smile” verses the “deployed tongue” debate. LOL Just joking.

How bad was it? And was it a full animation or just cartoon mach-up but featured real people?

 

[1Way]

Rolf – You responded to nothing that I provided by way of our “recorded discussion”, so what I say stands as truthful and accurate. You said

1Way just let out another diatribe.

LOL that is good, if you respond to you, it’s a diatribe, if I would not respond to you, then I’m a chicken, put up your dukes. You are so full of it.

My post was a response to YOU and YOUR ongoing diatribe of personal attacks against me.



Like I said since the beginning, stop the Tom Foollery, point me to where we can discuss these matters and have at it!

If we must do it here, you would be asking me to 1) change the topic and focus for this thread, and 2) you would be effectively admitting that you have no answer to this thread’s simple bible challenge since you have not provided any figurative replacement meaning for the literal text in question.

The reformed “closed theist” tradition of exegesis = 1) void scripture of meaning, 2) maintain a “meaningless figurative meaning”, :darwinsm: 3) claim no fault ignorance :dunce: over demonstrating the figure and it’s non-meaning.

What a deal.

 

[1Way]

Jeremy – Wait, sorry, I did some research and I stand corrected, you are right, it is a wide smile and not a tongue. I did some web searching, approx 3 minuets or so, and found your graphic. It is much clearer in the original that Jesus has teeth and is not hanging his tongue out. That is still a very thought provoking image, well done.

Here is the image I saw

http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/images/buddychrist1.jpg

from this web site

http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/churchnf.html

which is from www.Dogma-movie.com

Sometimes the details are misleading, the wider more accurate understanding proved conclusive, so I should have known, context, context, context.

So how do you like the closed theist’s "three step stomp"? Pretty vicious aren’t they.

 

[Turbo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem

Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem

Originally posted by Turbo
I think you're being dishonest here. Many OVers on this board have clarified that they do not believe God makes mistakes. Here (point #6) is one example that I know you read. Please provide a quote of any OVer stating that God makes mistakes.


Originally posted by Swordsman

OK. Here is a quote from an OVer John Sanders.

John Sanders in this book The God Who Risks
God's ability to predict the future in this way is far more accurate than any human forecasters, however, since God has exhaustive access to all past and present knowledge. This would explain God's foretelling Moses that Pharoah would refuse to grant his request. Nonetheless, this does leave open the possibility that God might be "mistaken" about some points, as the biblical record acknowledges. For instance, in Exodus God thought that the elders of Israel would believe Moses, but God acknowledges that Moses is correct in suggesting the possibility that they may not believe him (Exodus 3:16-4:9). God also thought the people of Jeremiah's day would repent and return to him, but they did not, to God's dismay (Jer. 3:7, 19-20).

There's a reason "mistaken" is in quotes. He's probably referring to attacks from anti-OVers like you. If he thought God were actually mistaken, he wouldn't have put the words in quotes.

 

[5Solas=Truth]

OMG... can you say "anal-retentive? gooood, I knew you could....

Originally posted by 1Way

Jeremy – Wait, sorry, I did some research and I stand corrected, you are right, it is a wide smile and not a tongue. I did some web searching, approx 3 minuets or so, and found your graphic. It is much clearer in the original that Jesus has teeth and is not hanging his tongue out. That is still a very thought provoking image, well done.

Here is the image I saw

http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/images/buddychrist1.jpg

from this web site

http://www.dogma-movie.com/pics/church/churchnf.html

which is from www.Dogma-movie.com

Sometimes the details are misleading, the wider more accurate understanding proved conclusive, so I should have known, context, context, context.

So how do you like the closed theist’s "three step stomp"? Pretty vicious aren’t they.

 

[5Solas=Truth]

Rolf, hang in there... its a sign of this wicked and perverse generation that the elderly are not respected.

here are a few sites that I have found to be helpful re Open Theistic theology; one is from John MacArthur's Seminary, numerous profs and MacArthur have some artices here:
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj01.asp

and of course John Piper has responded many times to Boyd and others, its here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/foreknowledge/foreknowledge_index.html

blessings

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by 5Solas=Truth

Rolf, hang in there... its a sign of this wicked and perverse generation that the elderly are not respected.

here are a few sites that I have found to be helpful re Open Theistic theology; one is from John MacArthur's Seminary, numerous profs and MacArthur have some artices here:
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj01.asp

and of course John Piper has responded many times to Boyd and others, its here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/foreknowledge/foreknowledge_index.html

blessings

I would tend to agree with you 5Solas=Truth, and I do think some authors out there do expose the false doctrines of open theology.

However, lately I've just thought the Scriptures are sufficient to refute just about any heretical teachings. We've touched on it a lot lately around these forums. Its just that you'll see an abundance of the Enyart and Boyd followers pounce on us claiming we take God's word out of context.

I will credit them though. At least these guys stick together a lot (it seems). Its like they all played on the same soccer team as kids. When one "scores a goal" they give each other high-fives and thumbs up.


Kids these days.......

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Acxt9_12Out--concerning your (the 78th) post on this thread.

I didn't post the 78th post...

Both you and 1Way were using for THAT argument a word which is not even in the TEXT of that verse. Both of you were obsessing about choro when the word used in every translation is NOT choro, but choreo.

Now I'm convinced that you have no idea what transpired in the other thread. I did use the word choreo in 2 Peter 3:9. Here's what I said, and even gave an example of how the same root word was used in John...

Let me show you how this word is used and that it should be translated "have room for."

Here's the last half of 2 Peter 3:9 in the original...

2 Peter 3:9b
9b mh boulemenoV tinaV apolesqai, alla pantaV eiV metanoian cwrhsai

Notice the word cwrhsai in red. This word means "to have room for." This word is also used in John 2:6.

John 2:6
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, having room for cwrousai twenty or thirty gallons apiece.

The same root word, cwrew is used in 2 Peter 3:9. Just as the stone waterpots "have room for" twenty or thirty gallons apiece, God counsels all to "have room for" repentance.

2 Peter 3:9 and John 2:6 both use different forms of "choreo" (Notice the large green greek word above - It's choreo). I never said anything about "choro". You, my friend, are confused...

Instead of digging up old carcasses of your errors, why not tackle Romans chapter 9? I told the people on this forum in advance that neither Arminians and OVers would not want to explain how their view of scripture explains Romans 9: 14-23.

Are you asking for an exegesis of the entire chapter? OK... Fine by me. If you have a specific issue in mind, I will respond to that as well. I am more than happy to respond to your "questions" even though you have yet to respond to any of my questions... You continue,

Sure enough--dead silence from both of you. You just rail at me falsely, saying that I have not answered your points even though I have thoroughly explained Nineveh, 1Tim.2:1-8 and 2Pet. 3:9. I have repeatedly explained how nothing in those texts conflicts with the fact that, as He said, "I am the Lord I change not"

Again, you have no idea what Malachi 3:6 is saying. Are you implying that God never changes based on that one verse? Wow...

and "The LORD is not a man that He should lie nor a son of man that He should repent."

Again, I provided links to 1 Samuel 15 and Numbers 23. I'm sure you never even looked at my comments there. Typical...

YOU PEOPLE are the ones who say that there is a contradiction in scripture. Guess what---that is YOUR problem, so rather than rail at me, why don't you two imminent theologians get your heads together and explain how YOUR view of those texts which speak of God repenting do NOT contradict those texts in which God clearly says that He does NOT repent.

rolf, I'll ask you AGAIN! What does God mean when He says He does repent?

Jeremiah 15:6
15:6
You have forsaken Me," says the Lord, "You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!

God is fed up with doing something that rolf says He does not do. Nice... Jonah says God repents. Moses says God repents. rolf says God does not repent. Who am I to trust?

I have no difficulty with those texts.

You would if you tried to answer any of them...

You all are the ones in a tizzy over them, so deal with your own weaknesses rather than rail at a man who sees no contradiction in Scripture. Of course, I know you would rather rail at the man who has carefully explained them all than try to publicly and openly work your way through Romans 9. See the difference between Reformed and Arminian/OVers? I dealt with the verses openly before the whole forum, but neither of you have dealt with those verses which I suggested that you explain. That SHOULD bother your conscience; but no you just keep throwing up the same type of verses which I have already dealt with whose exegesis is identical to those I have answered before. Look, students, I have cleaned my doorstep very well. When will you begin to sweep your own? I know better than to expect you to deal with verses you find strange.

You didn't answer anything... Since you're throwing down the gauntlet, let's start something on Romans 9... Good luck...

--Jeremy

 

[God_Is_Truth]

You didn't answer anything... Since you're throwing down the gauntlet, let's start something on Romans 9... Good luck...

i'd recommend a new thread if you are going to talk about Romans 9.

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

i'd recommend a new thread if you are going to talk about Romans 9.

Agree. Start us off GIT. I like the way you discuss your views better than others around here. You don't seem to come at it with "battle" or "debate" in mind. Although I disagree with you on some things, you have a sort of peaceful way of explaining your view. And for what its worth, I respect that.

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Agree. Start us off GIT. I like the way you discuss your views better than others around here. You don't seem to come at it with "battle" or "debate" in mind. Although I disagree with you on some things, you have a sort of peaceful way of explaining your view. And for what its worth, I respect that.

Actually, it's rolf's challenge... Let him start it...

 

[helmet84]

Discuss verses debate

Discuss verses debate

Can anybody recommend a good Christian Forum where issues and differences are 'discussed' instead of 'debated'?

I'm looking for a Christian Forum where people treat each other with "lowliness, gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love" (Eph 4:2)?

You know, where Christians love one another?

Are there any forums out there like that on the web? Or do you think my search is in vain?

Should I start a new thread?

-- helmet84

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Agree. Start us off GIT. I like the way you discuss your views better than others around here. You don't seem to come at it with "battle" or "debate" in mind. Although I disagree with you on some things, you have a sort of peaceful way of explaining your view. And for what its worth, I respect that.

while i appreciate the compliment, i'm gonna pass on that and let either you, acts, or rolf start it as you three are currently more involved on the issue.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Re: Discuss verses debate

Re: Discuss verses debate

Originally posted by helmet84

Can anybody recommend a good Christian Forum where issues and differences are 'discussed' instead of 'debated'?

I'm looking for a Christian Forum where people treat each other with "lowliness, gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love" (Eph 4:2)?

You know, where Christians love one another?

Are there any forums out there like that on the web? Or do you think my search is in vain?

Should I start a new thread?

-- helmet84

check out the "exclusively christian forum". it's a lot nicer than the other ones although it's not perfect. as for the web, i'd look if it was me. seems like you can find anything on there these days.

good luck :thumb:

 

[helmet84]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

while i appreciate the compliment, i'm gonna pass on that and let either you, acts, or rolf start it as you three are currently more involved on the issue.

Whoever starts it, how about we specify that this will be a civilized, 'christian' discussion where people will treat each other in love and humility, instead of having a 'debate'.

-- helmet84