ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Delmar]

I totally agree with you, God is omniscience and He don't make mistake. If He did He would have quit being God and the whole universe will be in chaos

Who have you ever known that said God made mistakes? I have a feeling you are misrepresenting somthing that somebody said, but I have no idea who since you didn't quote them.

 

[Clete]

In creating a world where humans have a choice to reject you or not; it is more than a risk - It is a foregone conclusion!

How so?

Neither Adam nor Eve (or even Lucifer for that matter) HAD to rebel. They could have chosen rightly. If this is not so then their choice was not free and they cannot justly be held responsible for it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Delmar]

You quack like one. There are a variety of views within the spectrum of 'Calvinism'. You are not an Arminian or Open Theist (free will, relational theism); you are closer to Calvinism than other major theological camps. You may not like labels, but if the shoe fits, you will have to wear it. You may not agree with everything about Calvinism, but either did John Calvin himself (TULIP came later, I believe).

He doesn't agree with the term. I tend to use the term determinist because it avoids the unless argument and it fits him to a tee. Besides why give Calvin credit for heresy that comes from Plato?

 

[Clete]

He doesn't agree with the term. I tend to use the term determinist because it avoids the unless argument and it fits him to a tee.

The only problem with that is that it allows him to win that useless argument and to get away with an inentional lie. A duck is a duck, it makes no difference whether you're a Mallard or a Wigeon, then term duck applies equally to both.

 

[Delmar]

The only problem with that is that it allows him to win that useless argument and to get away with an inentional lie.

did you catch my edit in post #3463


Besides why give Calvin credit for heresy that comes from Plato?

 

[Clete]

Besides why give Calvin credit for heresy that comes from Plato?

Can Plato, as an unbeliever, even be rightly called a heretic? I don't think so. The heretics are Augustine and Calvin. Besides, that isn't really the point. The point is that everyone knows what Calvinism is and virtually everything that Jim believes in relation to these issues is Calvinistic. He wouldn't believe them nor would he have ever heard of them if not for Calvin and to deny that he is a Calvinist is a lie, pure and simple. It's similar to deny someone is a human being because they aren't genetically identical to Adam.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[patman]

Hilston??? What are you talking about?

Has anyone ever wondered why it is that every post by an Open Deist is riddled with this kind of sloppy thinking? It's because Open Deism affects the function of the mind. Open Deists are so mentally diseased that they can't even follow a simple line of reasoning. Check this out: According to patman, calling God the author of sin is the same as having a plank in one's eye, and then he expects me to agree with that and to remove the plank. Hellooooo. Calling God the author of sin is not sinful. Knowing that God works all things, even the sin and evil, for His good purposes, affirms that the sin and evil He authored is for good. It is saying that God decrees evil for good, just as Job believed, just as Joseph believed, just as Paul believed. So why should I remove that "plank" from my beliefs before I go "digging specks of dust in other's eyes"? Clue. Less.

God is the author of sin. Nothing happens apart from God's plans. He planned for sin to happen. He plans evil for His good purposes and reasons. The scriptures affirm that this fact is a source of comfort and assurance. The OT (Opposable Thumb) God can offer neither. According to the Unsettled Deist, most things happen for no good reason or purpose. Why do you trust this God you've conceived?

Helloooooo?

Removing that plank represents you being smart for once and taking that proclamation back. Once you do that, I will consider you slightly more qualified to dish out your spiel and show your attitude. But until then you should invest in a zipper.

Let me help you get that "broom" out of your eye.... Oh.. or is that a tree?

Whatever it is, here is your problem:

Hilston: "the sin and evil He authored is for good"

So you are saying evil is good? You have also said he planned for evil... and you called that good too.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Jeremiah 4:22
“ For My people are foolish, They have not known Me. They are silly children, And they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, But to do good they have no knowledge.”

I am a little AFRAID TO tell you too much because you seem to get lost in the words.... But you are as Jeremiah said. To a 'T'. You for some reason see wisdom in evil? You see Goodness in Evil...

You claim to agree with Job? JOB? Don't you remember, in essence, Job said, "My bad. I didn't know what I was saying?" God appeared to him and let him have it for the wrong things he said about God. You want to be like that?

There was only one man in the book of Job, besides God, who had his head on straight. It was Elihu. He said in Job 34:

Job 34

10 “ Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding:
Far be it from God to do wickedness,
And from the Almighty to commit iniquity.

11 For He repays man according to his work,
And makes man to find a reward according to his way.

12 Surely God will never do wickedly,
Nor will the Almighty pervert justice.

13 Who gave Him charge over the earth?
Or who appointed Him over the whole world?

......

16 “If you have understanding, hear this;
Listen to the sound of my words:

17 Should one who hates justice govern?
Will you condemn Him who is most just?

........

35 ‘Job speaks without knowledge,
His words are without wisdom.’

36 Oh, that Job were tried to the utmost,
Because his answers are like those of wicked men!

37 For he adds rebellion to his sin;
He claps his hands among us,
And multiplies his words against God.”​

What did Job do when he saw God, Hilston?? Did he say "Oh, I was right after all?" NO. He did what you should do.... cover that mouth that speaks without understanding.

Ohhh, but you will probibaly try to wiggle out of my rebuke. You will say "planning evill isn't evil."

To that I must say God disagrees:

Proverbs 6

16 These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
17 A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.​

Now, can you please read this and take it in before you click the reply button? It isn't a race. You can take a day to think about it. Your saying God planed for evil... is evil! Cover your mouth, "Job!"

 

[Hilston]

The point is that everyone knows what Calvinism is ...

Open Theists don't know what Calvinism is. I've yet to meet one who does. Clete utterly disqualified himself from saying anything substantive regarding Calvinism ever since he betrayed the pathetic reality of his own former "Calvinism," so-called: It all started when Clete was telling me what impassibility and immutability meant to the Calvinist. I told him he was wrong, and asked him where he learned such distortions. Clete gave me the names of three churches. So I called those churches to ask them about where they got their ideas about impassibility and immutability, only to find out that they were thoroughly and unabashedly Arminian churches. After I confronted Clete with my findings, he admitted to being horribly confused and could not, for the life of him, figure out why he thought those churches were Calvinistic. I happen to know why Clete is so confused. It's the mad-cow disease of Open Theism that has crippled his brain.

... and virtually everything that Jim believes in relation to these issues is Calvinistic.

The operative phrase is: "In relation to these issues." That doesn't make someone a Calvinist. I also have views that are similar to Scofield "in relation to certain issues", but I am by no means a Scofieldian. I also have views that are similar to Jehovah's Witnesses "in relation to certain issues", but I'd rather have shards of glass in my eyes than be identified with the JWs. Clete's logic is flawed, but I've come to expect this from Open Deists, so it comes as no surprise.

... He wouldn't believe them nor would he have ever heard of them if not for Calvin ...

On the contrary, I held these views long before I studied Calvin. In fact, I never studied Calvin until I found out that Openness Diseased people were misrepresenting his views. Without Calvin, I already believed these truths because they are so abundantly taught and affirmed in the Word of God.

... and to deny that he is a Calvinist is a lie, pure and simple.

I disagree with most of what Calvin teaches. So how does that make me a Calvinist? Answer: In the mind of the Open Theist, if you're not an Open Theist, you're a Calvinist, pure and simple. This is the easy road for the Open Deist because he doesn't have to use his mind. It's a zero-tolerance policy, which requires no judgment to invoke. This is especially convenient given the fact that Clete's mind, like that of every Opposable Thumb Deist I've encountered, is damaged by the toxic theology to which they so tenaciously and irrationally cling.

... It's similar to deny someone is a human being because they aren't genetically identical to Adam.

Clete isn't qualified to make any judgments whatsoever about what is or is not Calvinism. To limit the definition of Calvinism to the Five Points is like limiting the definition of an automobile to its round tires. Plenty of non-automobiles have round tires, just as plenty of non-Calvinists agree with the five points, and in my case, there are fifteen points.

Resting in Him,

For the Unsettled Deist, this is irrational. According to the logical implications of the Open Deist conception of God, there is no solid ground upon which to base any such rest, or confidence or trust.

 

[Caille]

Open Theists don't know what Calvinism is. I've yet to meet one who does. Clete utterly disqualified himself from saying anything substantive regarding Calvinism ever since he betrayed the pathetic reality of his own former "Calvinism," so-called: It all started when Clete was telling me what impassibility and immutability meant to the Calvinist. I told him he was wrong, and asked him where he learned such distortions. Clete gave me the names of three churches. So I called those churches to ask them about where they got their ideas about impassibility and immutability, only to find out that they were thoroughly and unabashedly Arminian churches. After I confronted Clete with my findings, he admitted to being horribly confused and could not, for the life of him, figure out why he thought those churches were Calvinistic. I happen to know why Clete is so confused. It's the mad-cow disease of Open Theism that has crippled his brain.

The operative phrase is: "In relation to these issues." That doesn't make someone a Calvinist. I also have views that are similar to Scofield "in relation to certain issues", but I am by no means a Scofieldian. I also have views that are similar to Jehovah's Witnesses "in relation to certain issues", but I'd rather have shards of glass in my eyes than be identified with the JWs. Clete's logic is flawed, but I've come to expect this from Open Deists, so it comes as no surprise.

On the contrary, I held these views long before I studied Calvin. In fact, I never studied Calvin until I found out that Openness Diseased people were misrepresenting his views. Without Calvin, I already believed these truths because they are so abundantly taught and affirmed in the Word of God.

I disagree with most of what Calvin teaches. So how does that make me a Calvinist? Answer: In the mind of the Open Theist, if you're not an Open Theist, you're a Calvinist, pure and simple. This is the easy road for the Open Deist because he doesn't have to use his mind. It's a zero-tolerance policy, which requires no judgment to invoke. This is especially convenient given the fact that Clete's mind, like that of every Opposable Thumb Deist I've encountered, is damaged by the toxic theology to which they so tenaciously and irrationally cling.

Clete isn't qualified to make any judgments whatsoever about what is or is not Calvinism. To limit the definition of Calvinism to the Five Points is like limiting the definition of an automobile to its round tires. Plenty of non-automobiles have round tires, just as plenty of non-Calvinists agree with the five points, and in my case, there are fifteen points.

For the Unsettled Deist, this is irrational. According to the logical implications of the Open Deist conception of God, there is no solid ground upon which to base any such rest, or confidence or trust.

Yep, jackasss.


Great witness, witless!

 

[Hilston]

Yep, jackasss.

Great witness, witless!

Funny, the gainsayers in scripture said the same thing of Elijah, Jesus and Paul. Whenever I get these drive-by remarks from you people it affirms to me that I must be doing something right.

Eat your veggies,
Jim

 

[Caille]

Funny, the gainsayers in scripture said the same thing of Elijah, Jesus and Paul. Whenever I get these drive-by remarks from you people it affirms to me that I must be doing something right.

Eat your veggies,
Jim

I can just hear the Pharisees saying the same thing.

 

[Philetus]

HILSTON: To limit the definition of Calvinism to the Five Points is like limiting the definition of an automobile to its round tires. Plenty of non-automobiles have round tires, just as plenty of non-Calvinists agree with the five points, and in my case, there are fifteen points.

Jim, do your 15 points include the 5 points of Calvinists?

Philetus​

 

[Delmar]

Jim, do your 15 points include the 5 points of Calvinists?

Philetus​

5 points x 3 = 15 or somthing like that!

 

[Hilston]

Urgent! Before he hurts himself, would someone please tell Clete that I was not talking to him, but merely referring to his typical fatuous Mad Cow Theism statements. Besides, I have permission from the moderator to refer to his posts as long as I don't refer to him as "Clete, the Dead Guy." He needs to know that he can rest assured that I wasn't talking to him nor am I interested in doing so.

If any of you are friends of Clete, please advise him to avoid reading my posts, for his own safety. They're not even addressed to him. Thanks.

Clinging the Rock; according to God's decree,
Jim

 

[godrulz]

Urgent! Before he hurts himself, would someone please tell Clete that I was not talking to him, but merely referring to his typical fatuous Mad Cow Theism statements. Besides, I have permission from the moderator to refer to his posts as long as I don't refer to him as "Clete, the Dead Guy." He needs to know that he can rest assured that I wasn't talking to him nor am I interested in doing so.

If any of you are friends of Clete, please advise him to avoid reading my posts, for his own safety. They're not even addressed to him. Thanks.

Clinging the Rock; according to God's decree,
Jim

We need to do something about your red neg reps. We should reserve that many for the nutbars around here. Though your views are wrong at times, you do not merit that many red boxes.

 

[Vaquero45]

heavily snipped...

To limit the definition of Calvinism to the Five Points is like limiting the definition of an automobile to its round tires. Plenty of non-automobiles have round tires, just as plenty of non-Calvinists agree with the five points, and in my case, there are fifteen points.

L,U,C,I,F,E,R,I,A,N,T,U,L,I,P ???





couldn't resist...

 

[elected4ever]

:spam:

L,U,C,I,F,E,R,I,A,N,T,U,L,I,P ???





couldn't resist...

:spam:

 

[Hilston]

We need to do something about your red neg reps. We should reserve that many for the nutbars around here. Though your views are wrong at times, you do not merit that many red boxes.

What are you referring to, GR? Where do I see these red boxes you're referring to?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

What are you referring to, GR? Where do I see these red boxes you're referring to?

That would be your reputation points.

 

[Hilston]

That would be your reputation points.

I've been using TOL-lite, which doesn't display the red boxes. I changed it to TOL standard just to see what you're referring to. I really prefer the red boxes. Much better than that sissy green.

I just look "rep points" as the equivalent of a high-five on the playground. I've given a high-five from time to time, usually when engaged in some sports activity; but rarely while engaging in meaningful discussion. On the average, there are certain kinds of people who engage in this "high-fiving" behavior regularly. I'm not one of those people.

Thanks, nonetheless, for your concern.