God_Is_Truth
New member
Hilston said:
Out of curiosity, why does your description say "pagan" rather than "christian" ?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Out of curiosity, why does your description say "pagan" rather than "christian" ?
elected4ever
New member
No!patman said:
patman
Active member
Last year, around this time actually, when I first started posting regularly here is when I first noticed them. I wondered what they were and why I didn't have any, so I went looking around, finding very little documentation on them, and kinda sorta remember reading something close to what I said.
I think I re-discovered what I read. It turns out to be a registered plus member you need 50 points. Sorry for the confusion!
Sooooo, we should revoke Hilston's avatar... He's waaaay under 50 now.
I think I re-discovered what I read. It turns out to be a registered plus member you need 50 points. Sorry for the confusion!
Sooooo, we should revoke Hilston's avatar... He's waaaay under 50 now.
Last edited:
Sure, make me change it. And why? Because I'm soooooo good-looking. And you're all just jealous.patman said:
Patman must be an Open Theist, because this is what Open Theists do: They read something in black and white, such as God's qualified immutability as discussed by Augustine, and then turn right around and misrepresent what they've read.
As I've said many times before, Open Theism (Mad Cow theology) poisons the mind and prevents its adherents from making lucid judgments, from engaging in rational discourse, from connecting obvious dots, and from comprehending what they read.
Here again, we see a perfect example of the addled state of mind caused by the Openness Virus. Patman reads the requirements in black and white, and then turns right around and misrepresent what he's read.
One's avatar has nothing to do with one's reputation points. It's 50 posts, not 50 points, to become a registered-plus member.
patman
Active member
As Christians, our highest goal should be to honor God. It is something most all of us intend to do. So which View honors God?
No one fits neatly into a category, but chances are that if you are a Settled Theist, you believe most of the following:
Settled View:
God knows all of the future
God intended for the fall of man(to provide grace)
Every prophecy was fulfilled
There is no change in God
Some or all of mans actions are predestined.
Settled Theist look at Peter's denial of Christ as an example of God's foreknowledge. Some argue that Peter had freewill. And his decision to deny Christ was his to make or not, meaning he didn't "have to do it."
But how? God said he was going to do it. He is always right about the future. God won't change. So how could PETER chose otherwise?
Perhaps he foresaw the decision... isn't that the explanation? But still, the decision is sealed in time, Peter's decision was a result of countless causes and effects, locked in eternity as final. Noting Peter could do would change it.
There was only one outcome, and denial was the only choice. With the Settled View, there is no freewill. The outcome only seems like it was birthed from freewill.
How do freewill loving S.V.er's answer this? They don't, instead they ignore the problem and look for problems in other theological solutions so they can hold to the precious belief that God knows all the future.
For some reason, you can sacrifice anything about God, us, the world, sinners, anything goes as long as we keep that one idea true: God knows alllllll of the future. And the idea isn't even stated in scripture.
Why sacrifice it all to keep the one idea? Why does God's worthiness of Praise and power hinge on this idea? The O.V. honors God, and sees him as worthy without requiring he have 100% future knowledge. Why can't the S.V. drop the drama and let God's deity not rest on what he does or doesn't know about the future?
No one fits neatly into a category, but chances are that if you are a Settled Theist, you believe most of the following:
Settled View:
God knows all of the future
God intended for the fall of man(to provide grace)
Every prophecy was fulfilled
There is no change in God
Some or all of mans actions are predestined.
Settled Theist look at Peter's denial of Christ as an example of God's foreknowledge. Some argue that Peter had freewill. And his decision to deny Christ was his to make or not, meaning he didn't "have to do it."
But how? God said he was going to do it. He is always right about the future. God won't change. So how could PETER chose otherwise?
Perhaps he foresaw the decision... isn't that the explanation? But still, the decision is sealed in time, Peter's decision was a result of countless causes and effects, locked in eternity as final. Noting Peter could do would change it.
There was only one outcome, and denial was the only choice. With the Settled View, there is no freewill. The outcome only seems like it was birthed from freewill.
How do freewill loving S.V.er's answer this? They don't, instead they ignore the problem and look for problems in other theological solutions so they can hold to the precious belief that God knows all the future.
For some reason, you can sacrifice anything about God, us, the world, sinners, anything goes as long as we keep that one idea true: God knows alllllll of the future. And the idea isn't even stated in scripture.
Why sacrifice it all to keep the one idea? Why does God's worthiness of Praise and power hinge on this idea? The O.V. honors God, and sees him as worthy without requiring he have 100% future knowledge. Why can't the S.V. drop the drama and let God's deity not rest on what he does or doesn't know about the future?
patman
Active member
Hilston, I know you are bashing on everyone, so I just wanted to send you some Christian love and say, "You are a beautiful man."Hilston said:
Yes, I said it. At the risk of sounding gay, I said it. You wear a 'dash unlike no other. No sign of male pattern baldness. You got it going.
Oh. Sometimes I do goof on what I read, I gotta re-read sometimes. Trust me, I have studied this stuff, and know it pretty well. But I know you make mistakes to, so your last post should be easy to take back, just like I did mine.
So, you being so beautiful on the outside.... go ahead and show that inner beauty more.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I had just saw this after posting the above. It turns out that I was right, at one time reputation did count....
I guess I wasn't so crazy after all.....
NOW i must drop this because I feel as if I have said enough about this,,,, This is an Open Theism thread. Hilston, you can have the last word, I will speak of it no more.
Last edited:
ApologeticJedi
New member
Hilston said:
Quibble all you want. You lean towards Cavlinism so much that you've adopted limited atonement. That you don't want to admit to the sources of your belief is a bit childish.
sentientsynth
New member
It's also a good way to vent anger, huh Clete.Clete said:
Plenty of people affirmed the biblical doctrine of particular redemption long before Calvin came along. Anyone studying the Bible with a consistent hermeneutic and their logical faculties fully engaged would come away with a clear view of particular redemption. It's the only logical and biblically consistent position to take. Universal redemption (unlimited atonment) makes no logical or biblical sense, which is why the damage inflicted upon one's mind by Open Theism is so important in adopting unlimited atonement (according to God's decree, of course).ApologeticJedi said:
The source of my belief is the sound logic and the clear exegesis of scripture. The source of the Open View is Lucifer (all according to God's decree, of course). I don't expect Open Theists to admit the sources of their belief, because part of Lucifer's success is disguising himself as an angel of light and hiding his influence from them (according to God's decree).ApologeticJedi said:
RobE
New member
Clete said:
It certainly sounds simple from that perspective.
What is the exact probability man would remain perfect of his own accord?
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
The reality is far more complex. Flesh begets _________?
What?
Rob
Hilston said:
One consideration that you may want to ponder, Hilston, is that if you are right and the Settled View is the accurate one, then those who hold the Open View can't help themselves and all your insults and scorn are unjustified.
If, however, the Open View is the accurate one, then the behavior of those holding the Settled View is upon their own heads.
RobE said:
Neg rep for slander/libel. You know better.
God is omniscient. He knows the past and present exhaustively. This is vast, perfect knowledge. He knows the future as possible vs actual because that is the nature of the partially open future He created. If He settled the future, which He did not, then He would know it as settled.
In contrast, I know diddly squat in comparison. I know a drop in the bucket of all possible past, present, or future knowledge. I am not omniscient. I am also not as wise or intelligent as God (not even close, obviously).
Straw men caricatures bug me, so cut it out.
Is it your belief that Adam was created with what we now refer to as "the fleshly nature"?RobE said:
Asked another way, do you believe that Adam was created with a propencity toward evil?
Is our having to contend with our flesh the result of the fall or was it the cause of it?
Resting in Him,
Clete
- Status