ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Pigbutt is guilty of the wildest of blasphemies and I despise him even more now that he has his wife come running to his defense, involving her in his blasphemy.
Your husband is a lying fool madam and you would do well to hold your tongue and learn your place. Your guilt is only mitigated by your obvious ignorance. Your husband has no such excuse. He isn't here to debate or to teach or to learn. He is here to blaspheme the God who made him and bought him with His own blood. Until such time as he repents publicly he can count me as an enemy and I intend to treat him as one.
Your husband denies the existence of an eternal Hell but I assure you it exists. If you don't want to end up there along with your husband I would urge you to repent and pray first for your own soul and then for your husbands also.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Your husband is a lying fool madam and you would do well to hold your tongue and learn your place. Your guilt is only mitigated by your obvious ignorance. Your husband has no such excuse. He isn't here to debate or to teach or to learn. He is here to blaspheme the God who made him and bought him with His own blood. Until such time as he repents publicly he can count me as an enemy and I intend to treat him as one.
Psalm 139:21 Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
Your husband denies the existence of an eternal Hell but I assure you it exists. If you don't want to end up there along with your husband I would urge you to repent and pray first for your own soul and then for your husbands also.
Psalms 5: 4 For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You.
5 The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
You hate all workers of iniquity.
6 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood;
The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.
Nor shall evil dwell with You.
5 The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
You hate all workers of iniquity.
6 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood;
The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.
Resting in Him,
Clete
ToClete from the wife of Bill
ToClete from the wife of Bill
Yes. You indeed are an enemy to Bill and myself. And fools such as yourself are the very reason that I am no longer involved in the church.
You are by far one of the most silly individuals I have ever encountered on the internet. And don't you dare tell me what to do you fool. Talking about repenting. YOU ******* are the only one here who needs to do some serious repentiing.
You are such a fool .
Connie
ToClete from the wife of Bill
Yes. You indeed are an enemy to Bill and myself. And fools such as yourself are the very reason that I am no longer involved in the church.
You are by far one of the most silly individuals I have ever encountered on the internet. And don't you dare tell me what to do you fool. Talking about repenting. YOU ******* are the only one here who needs to do some serious repentiing.
You are such a fool .
Connie
sentientsynth
New member
No. Those are GREAT words.Bacon said:
Welcome to TOL: where brotherly love can hurt like hell.
You're right. Those posts of his are absolutely torturous.
Thank you, no, bless you, for this relief.
:mario:
Hijack?
Hijack?
First - I like your mom! It is nice to see some wit.
Indeed, this discussion has degenerated terribly.
To recap, my original point was that people tend to approach theological questions as the philosophers did - by dialectic. That is, they reason, building on various assumptions. For example, typical musings about the question of whether or not the god knows who will be saved run like this:
"God is perfect, therefore he is perfect in knowledge. If he learns something, he must not have been perfect in knowledge as this would require him to change, and improve, and thus destroy his perfection."
This is the stuff the Greek philosophers would do, but it is not characteristic of the Hebrews. The Hebrews did not have this idea of perfection and thus they are quick to speak of their god as learning and changing his mind:
Ge 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Genesis 18:
20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Ge 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
For many people, the Greek philosophers are more influential to their thinking and so insist that these verses are anthropomorphisms, etc, but these are merely representative of the perception of their god as basically a man in form and constitution, living in the sky and presiding as king. They did not conceive of a "cosmic spirit" or "omniscient" or "omnipresent" being. All of that comes from the philosophers, not the scriptures.
Obviously, if the god has a form, then Trinity is a little harder to conceive of (as if it is not absurd enough already). If indeed a physical human being named Jesus sits beside another essentially human, albeit divine person, then if they are both divine, then you have two gods. I think that is how the conversation proceeded.
But the main point is that the god learns. This is the testimony of the scriptures. In Hebrew thinking this does not break his "sovereignty." The sovereignty of the god is not expressed by dictating the actions of men but in judging their free actions.
Hijack?
Philetus said:
Yes it was!
How can a thread on Open Theism turn into a debate on the diety of Christ? Talk about hijacking on the high seas.
Hey Bacon, don't leave just yet, My mom wants to say something.
Thanks mom.
Philetus
First - I like your mom! It is nice to see some wit.
Indeed, this discussion has degenerated terribly.
To recap, my original point was that people tend to approach theological questions as the philosophers did - by dialectic. That is, they reason, building on various assumptions. For example, typical musings about the question of whether or not the god knows who will be saved run like this:
"God is perfect, therefore he is perfect in knowledge. If he learns something, he must not have been perfect in knowledge as this would require him to change, and improve, and thus destroy his perfection."
This is the stuff the Greek philosophers would do, but it is not characteristic of the Hebrews. The Hebrews did not have this idea of perfection and thus they are quick to speak of their god as learning and changing his mind:
Ge 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Genesis 18:
20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Ge 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
For many people, the Greek philosophers are more influential to their thinking and so insist that these verses are anthropomorphisms, etc, but these are merely representative of the perception of their god as basically a man in form and constitution, living in the sky and presiding as king. They did not conceive of a "cosmic spirit" or "omniscient" or "omnipresent" being. All of that comes from the philosophers, not the scriptures.
Obviously, if the god has a form, then Trinity is a little harder to conceive of (as if it is not absurd enough already). If indeed a physical human being named Jesus sits beside another essentially human, albeit divine person, then if they are both divine, then you have two gods. I think that is how the conversation proceeded.
But the main point is that the god learns. This is the testimony of the scriptures. In Hebrew thinking this does not break his "sovereignty." The sovereignty of the god is not expressed by dictating the actions of men but in judging their free actions.
I basically agree with all of the above.Bacon said:
The Bible does in fact teach the doctrine of the Trinity and there are even extra-biblical proofs that God cannot be unitarian (small u) in nature but that is a topic for another thread.
Now this I completely agree with! Why are you so able to accept the clear teaching of Scripture on these matters but reject the Scripture when it comes right out and says that Jesus is God and when it attributes to Jesus what can only be understood honestly as claims to be divine? I wasn't kidding about the whole book of John, by the way. Jesus throughout that book says things like "You have heard it said...but I tell you" and various other versions of the same thing where Jesus takes on the authority of the Scriptures themselves and speaks with the authority of God.
Further, how would the whole gospel thing make any sense if Jesus were not God? Was not the purpose of the cross to atone for the sins of all mankind? How would that work if Jesus were only a man? Even if He were to have lived a perfect life as a man, (which the Bible clearly teaches cannot be done), then He would only have been able to die for the sins of another man not the sins of all mankind! If Jesus was not God then the price paid was insufficient to get the job done by any standard of justice that I've ever heard of and certainly not by the standard presented in the Old Testament.
Now, primarily for the sake of your wife who seems ill equipped to handle it, I’ve toned down the rhetoric. If you would like for it to continue that way, I suggest you cinch down your intellectual honesty cap and make darn sure it remains securely on your head and respond substantively and without the semantic games your were playing earlier.
Oh! And please use the [ quote] tag feature in your posts instead of simply putting whatever you're quoting in traditional quotation marks. It makes it so much easier to read! Thanks!
Resting in Him,
Clete
RobE
New member
Bacon said:
ALL Christians hold that Jesus is God and became man; to do that which man couldn't do himself.
Hebrews 5:
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being ***made perfect***, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being ***made perfect***, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
You forgot:
Hebrews 7:11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
A priest king was required. And not an earthly king at that. Or do you believe that Jesus was made king while on earth. Your statement that Jesus 'became perfect by dying to sin' isn't supported by scripture. The scripture specifically says that that man could not achieve perfection, so perfection had to come from He who is perfect.
1 John 4:9
9By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
9By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
Jesus existed before being born. This passage is specific. 'God has sent' is not the same as 'Jesus became'.
Your proof texts point to the fact that Jesus was indeed man and faced temptation, trials, and doubts; as all men do. He remained perfect and proved His worthiness to receive all power, honor, and praise which your verses from Revelation point to.
bacon said:
Then how could Jesus overcome death which He justly deserved(in your interpretation) any more than Adam did? And how did God 'send Him' if He wasn't 'with' God to begin with as John 1 espouses?
:idea: Lights,
Rob
ApologeticJedi
New member
Bacon said:
I would say it is almost impossible for man to fully grasp, and perhaps no one ever has. But that it what the Bible portrays and so we accept it.
I think it would be somewhat far fetched to believe that we mortals could completely conceive of what it is like to be a deity anyway.
- Status