ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

If lee is born again , sinning is not possible for him but sense you , by your testimony, are in the flesh. You can.

Are you suggesting that someone can remove themselves from their position in Christ "by their testimony"?

 

[patman]

So then God had some agency here, did he not? Job being in Satan's hand, this was allowed by God's decision, is this not true?

God could have prevented this? He could have kept up the hedge?

Blessings,
Lee

This is what open theism is all about, Lee. True freewill. It puzzles me that you do not wonder "If God knows everything, why test Job?"

God has 0 involvement with sin. He can't even tempt. You are desperate to find some way to show he does. Make him look evil. Make him look like he authors sin and is the true source of evil. Meanwhile call us blasphemers who but words in the bible? A book you cannot even comprehend due to your evil theology.

God placed the tree in Eden as a choice to Adam and Eve. Choose God or choose no God. Had God only blessed them, they would have not found true love. Job was in a position of blessings. God allowed Satan to remove those blessings to see what Job would do.

In both cases, God allowed, though he did not provoke sin. Satan did as he wished, so did Adam and Eve, so do we all. God allowing for sin in no way involves him.

Now................

You didn't answer anything in the last post... what 'says' you to it.

 

[godrulz]

If lee is born again , sinning is not possible for him but sense you , by your testimony, are in the flesh. You can.

Are you saying he (Philetus) is not a Christian?

 

[elected4ever]

Are you saying he (Philetus) is not a Christian?

Not only that you can't read.

 

[elected4ever]

Not only you but Philetus and anyone else who claims to still be subject to the flesh. A person is righteous or unrighteous. Never both. A person is of the flesh or of the Spirit, not both. The flesh is dead and not subject to God or to the law of God because that person has already been judged and condemned.

 

[godrulz]

Not only that you can't read.

Are you saying he is not a genuine Christian? Yes or No.

I can spell, though.

 

[elected4ever]

Are you suggesting that someone can remove themselves from their position in Christ "by their testimony"?

I am saying that a person who does not believe the testimony of Christ and the apostles is not saved. If anyone preach another gospel let him be condemned. I am not the judge of your relationship with Christ. I only know what He has said and He is the Judge. You ether believe him or you don't.

 

[godrulz]

Not only you but Philetus and anyone else who claims to still be subject to the flesh. A person is righteous or unrighteous. Never both. A person is of the flesh or of the Spirit, not both. The flesh is dead and not subject to God or to the law of God because that person has already been judged and condemned.

I am not subject to the flesh. In any given choice, though, I could yield to the Spirit or the flesh (Romans 6-8). Believers are exhorted to not sin, but to walk in the light and Spirit vs flesh. They are not brainwashed to think that they cannot have a wrong thought, motive, word, or deed. Sinless perfectionism is not the experience of most believers nor is it a condition of eternal life. We do not have to sin, but if we do, there is provision (I Jn. 1:9 context= believers).

 

[elected4ever]

Are you saying he is not a genuine Christian? Yes or No.

I can spell, though.

Who cares if you can spell. I must make my on personal judgement and treat people accordingly. That is a personal relationship matter in how I treat people. It is not the acts of an individule that saves but the believing. If one does not believe God then how can I call that person brother?

 

[elected4ever]

I am not subject to the flesh. In any given choice, though, I could yield to the Spirit or the flesh (Romans 6-8). Believers are exhorted to not sin, but to walk in the light and Spirit vs flesh. They are not brainwashed to think that they cannot have a wrong thought, motive, word, or deed. Sinless perfectionism is not the experience of most believers nor is it a condition of eternal life. We do not have to sin, but if we do, there is provision (I Jn. 1:9 context= believers).

As I have said many times, You constantly misrepresent the truth. You are an untrustworthy witness. You have been told the truth on many occasions and you sill will not accept the truth.

 

[elected4ever]

I am not subject to the flesh. In any given choice, though, I could yield to the Spirit or the flesh (Romans 6-8). Believers are exhorted to not sin, but to walk in the light and Spirit vs flesh. They are not brainwashed to think that they cannot have a wrong thought, motive, word, or deed. Sinless perfectionism is not the experience of most believers nor is it a condition of eternal life. We do not have to sin, but if we do, there is provision (I Jn. 1:9 context= believers).

Then why do you not believe Paul when he says, "It is no longer I that do it but sin that dwells in me." and " in my flesh dwells no good thing" and "you are not of the flesh but of the spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you and if you have not the Spirit then you are none of His."

 

[godrulz]

Who cares if you can spell. I must make my on personal judgement and treat people accordingly. That is a personal relationship matter in how I treat people. It is not the acts of an individule that saves but the believing. If one does not believe God then how can I call that person brother?

Philetus and myself know, love, and believe in God through Christ. He has a good spirit. You have a legalistic, sectish spirit. :down:

God is a much better Judge of hearts than you are, fortunately. Like sozo, you make eternal life contingent on accepting your views on issues that have godly, capable believers on both sides of the issue. There is a difference between the essentials of the faith and nuanced beliefs on peripheral (but important) issues. Salvation is in the person and work of Christ, not in theological perfection, sophistication, or bowing to half-truths.

 

[elected4ever]

I am not subject to the flesh. In any given choice, though, I could yield to the Spirit or the flesh (Romans 6-8). Believers are exhorted to not sin, but to walk in the light and Spirit vs flesh. They are not brainwashed to think that they cannot have a wrong thought, motive, word, or deed. Sinless perfectionism is not the experience of most believers nor is it a condition of eternal life. We do not have to sin, but if we do, there is provision (I Jn. 1:9 context= believers).

Absolute righteousness is required for fellowship with God. Nothing less. There is no fellowship between sin and righteousness.

 

[godrulz]

Then why do you not believe Paul when he says, "It is no longer I that do it but sin that dwells in me." and " in my flesh dwells no good thing" and "you are not of the flesh but of the spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you and if you have not the Spirit then you are none of His."

Paul uses 'flesh' as a metaphor for sin. Paul's struggles do not prove your faulty points. You conveniently ignore the principles of obedience, counting, yielding, etc. in the same context. A believer can have the indwelling spirit and say a lie. My Christian son lied to us. This did not sever His relationship with God putting him on a path to hell. In case you missed it, other godly believers in the Bible and Church history lied, adulterated, etc. and yet were shown to be in the kingdom of God. Grace, mercy, etc. are also truths from God, not just wooden literalisms/legalisms that substitute man-made interpretations for the person of Christ as a condition of eternal life.

Jn. 3:16, 36; Jn. 1:12; I Jn. 5:11-13 These passages have nothing to do with accepting sinless perfectionism in order to be saved. Ironically, antinomianism is also compatible with your view. You euphemistically must call sin a 'mistake' to retain your theology. Oh, David was in the OT. So? Sin is sin. Holiness is holiness. Faith, love, obedience are just that, in any covenant or dispensation.

 

[elected4ever]

Philetus and myself know, love, and believe in God through Christ. He has a good spirit. You have a legalistic, sectish spirit. :down:

God is a much better Judge of hearts than you are, fortunately. Like sozo, you make eternal life contingent on accepting your views on issues that have godly, capable believers on both sides of the issue. There is a difference between the essentials of the faith and nuanced beliefs on peripheral (but important) issues. Salvation is in the person and work of Christ, not in theological perfection, sophistication, or bowing to half-truths.

Legalistic????? I am not the one that depends on keeping the law to make myself look righteous and good to others. I am what God has made me to be. I am born of His seed. I have God's character by His work in me, not by some phony display of fabricated righteousness.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Godrulz: Satan is on a leash. He afflicted Job. God did not flip a coin and decide to cause Job grief, he did not manipulate Satan into doing what Satan wanted to do, etc.

Philetus: Yea, and God allows you to sin, Lee.

Patman: This is what open theism is all about, Lee. True freewill.

But God removed the hedge, that is the point.

If I do not follow my kids all the time and protect them with a gun from all threats, does that mean I am responsible if thugs bully them?

If you say to a thug, “He is in your hands,” then yes, you have responsibility.

It puzzles me that you do not wonder "If God knows everything, why test Job?"

It was in fact the devil’s question at issue, “Does Job serve God for nothing?”

God has 0 involvement with sin. He can't even tempt.

I agree that God is not a tempter.

Make him look like he authors sin and is the true source of evil.

I agree that God is not the source of evil, but he does cause sinful actions, just as you can control a water hose and not be the source of the water.

You didn't answer anything in the last post... what 'says' you to it.

The reason was I was trying to narrow the discussion, you repeatedly ignore my points (for example) about Elihu, and make the same statements over and over again.

So…

Yet God didn't afflict him. Satan did.

What about the Sabeans, I ask again? Who took away Job’s donkeys, the Sabeans, or Satan?

Lee: Yet unwitting blasphemy is a sin, Paul had to be forgiven for this.

Patman: Saul murdered Christians. This was his sin. Lee. Such a bad example.

Yet still unwitting blasphemy was a sin, yes, Paul was a violent man, he was also an unwitting blasphemer, and he had to be forgiven for both sins.

You simply ignore the point, and then make claim again and again, and this does not seem to advance the discussion, somehow.

Job's, His wife's, His friend's mistaken saying God did it is not adequate to form your proof. THEY ARE HUMAN. God is GOD. Listen to him, not Job!

Quite so, God says it’s not a sin to say “The Lord took away,” also Scripture says “the trouble the Lord brought on Job, and you have yet again ignored my point. Restating your conclusion does not constitute an argument, sad to say.

Why do you consider Job's words more than Elihu?

Again I note that Elihu implied clearly that God did this.

Job 36:17 But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked; judgment and justice have taken hold of you.

Now Satan would not be in view here, carrying out justice and judgment, therefore the one acting here, according to Elihu, would be God.

But I’m weary of this, and will stop here.

Regards,
Lee

P.S. Pastor Hill, would you please respond to my points? This also wearies me, I must say.

 

[elected4ever]

Paul uses 'flesh' as a metaphor for sin. Paul's struggles do not prove your faulty points. You conveniently ignore the principles of obedience, counting, yielding, etc. in the same context. A believer can have the indwelling spirit and say a lie. My Christian son lied to us. This did not sever His relationship with God putting him on a path to hell. In case you missed it, other godly believers in the Bible and Church history lied, adulterated, etc. and yet were shown to be in the kingdom of God. Grace, mercy, etc. are also truths from God, not just wooden literalisms/legalisms that substitute man-made interpretations for the person of Christ as a condition of eternal life.

Jn. 3:16, 36; Jn. 1:12; I Jn. 5:11-13 These passages have nothing to do with accepting sinless perfectionism in order to be saved. Ironically, antinomianism is also compatible with your view. You euphemistically must call sin a 'mistake' to retain your theology. Oh, David was in the OT. So? Sin is sin. Holiness is holiness. Faith, love, obedience are just that, in any covenant or dispensation.

If sin and flesh are the same thing then why is it necessary to condemn sin in the flesh? The flesh is no metaphor but a synonym for human nature. It is who a person is in there natural state of being. It can mean the body is some instances. In this case it does mean the body. Sin is confined to the natural body and dies with it along with the human nature that opposes God..

 

[godrulz]

Legalistic????? I am not the one that depends on keeping the law to make myself look righteous and good to others. I am what God has made me to be. I am born of His seed. I have God's character by His work in me, not by some phony display of fabricated righteousness.

Which aspects of the law do I keep to get or keep saved? Are you omniscient? Adding your sinless perfectionism heresies to the finished work on the cross as a condition of salvation is legalistic or Gnostic.

 

[godrulz]

If sin and flesh are the same thing then why is it necessary to condemn sin in the flesh? The flesh is no metaphor but a synonym for human nature. It is who a person is in there natural state of being. It can mean the body is some instances. In this case it does mean the body. Sin is confined to the natural body and dies with it along with the human nature that opposes God..

Like most words, the meaning can vary depending on the context or can have nuances of meanings. Adultery and murder are sins. They are volitional. Reducing them to a substance is not biblical. It confuses 'morals' and metaphysics.

 

[Philetus]

Thank you for your kind condemnation, E4E. I’m sure God meant it for good.