ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

You see what a half truth will get you. A false accusation by a non believer that can't stand the truth. What I said was that Jesus is not the father That Jesus is the only begotten of the Father in the Flesh and that the trinity as presently taught by trinitarians is a myth. As a mater of fact my position is for more Biblical and logical than Godrulz. That is unless you wont to believe that Jesus is a schitsofrantic and goes around talking to himself. You see clete, he is like you. He only believes the part that suits him. The rest he makes up.

You did not just say that Jesus is not the Father. This is a rejection of modalism/oneness/Sabellianism, which I also reject. The Trinity does NOT teach that Jesus is the person of the Father (straw man).


What you did say was that Jesus is NOT GOD. This is a denial of biblical Christianity, makes Christ a creature or subordinate, and puts one in the Arian heresy camp.

The Trinity teaches that Jesus IS GOD, but not the person of the Father.

I gave opportunity for you to clarify, but you back peddle and try to avoid stating it again as a denial of His Deity. This is serious error and puts you with the JWs and guys like keypurr here.

 

[godrulz]

Not in the person of Jesus. Jesus was born of a virgin 2000 years ago. The word became the person of Jesus and is the eternal existence.. The word indwelt the body of Jesus. The physical body of Jesus was born of the seed of The Father the one who by His nature is God and He could not sin because He is born of God as the scripture says, A body thou hast prepared for me" and in another place, " I have come to do thy will oh God". Jesus did do His own will because His will was to do the Father's will.

There were a variety of early church heresies about the incarnation. The logos did not just indwell a body (Apollinarianism, Nestorianism? I can't remember which at the moment, etc.?). The Word BECAME flesh (Jn. 1:14). Jesus is one person with two natures...100% uncreated Deity and 100% humanity.

 

[godrulz]

Where is the petition to unban sozo? It is better than him being a ghost-writer through LH.

 

[Lighthouse]

Where is the petition to unban sozo? It is better than him being a ghost-writer through LH.

:shut:

 

[elected4ever]

You did not just say that Jesus is not the Father. This is a rejection of modalism/oneness/Sabellianism, which I also reject. The Trinity does NOT teach that Jesus is the person of the Father (straw man).


What you did say was that Jesus is NOT GOD. This is a denial of biblical Christianity, makes Christ a creature or subordinate, and puts one in the Arian heresy camp.

The Trinity teaches that Jesus IS GOD, but not the person of the Father.

I gave opportunity for you to clarify, but you back peddle and try to avoid stating it again as a denial of His Deity. This is serious error and puts you with the JWs and guys like keypurr here.

The father is God

 

[Lon]

The father is God

and Jesus is? This is one of those discussions that need careful writing. What is your church background/doctrinal statement?

 

[Lon]

Have you ever seen a Calvanist admit error?

Sure. All the time! I admitted your calling me 'idiot' was a big error for you.

I admitted that Philetus made an error when he forgot butter on my popcorn.

I admitted when Knight missed a link in the reconstuction phase.

It happens sometimes with the best of all of us.

(Calvinism has been hammered out for a few centuries now, so there wouldn't be
error unless we didn't present it correctly. If you go to Knight and my one on one, I admitted to a few errors for sure- here was a recent one: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1492869&postcount=150).

 

[godrulz]

The father is God

Yes He is, but the Son and Holy Spirit are also called the one God in Scripture (and all 3 are personally distinct, hence a triune understanding).

 

[godrulz]

and Jesus is? This is one of those discussions that need careful writing. What is your church background/doctrinal statement?

Lone Ranger, I think.

 

[Philetus]

Sure. All the time! I admitted your calling me 'idiot' was a big error for you.

I admitted that Philetus made an error when he forgot butter on my popcorn.

I admitted when Knight missed a link in the reconstuction phase.

It happens sometimes with the best of all of us.

(Calvinism has been hammered out for a few centuries now, so there wouldn't be
error unless we didn't present it correctly. If you go to Knight and my one on one, I admitted to a few errors for sure- here was a recent one: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1492869&postcount=150).

There is that 'we've been here forever' argument again. The whole thing is built on error.

Heck, E4E has been around forever, too. That make him error free?

More butter?:chuckle:
Philetus

 

[Clete]

Actually, Sozo doesn't even believe that. I heard it from his own mouth as he sat in front of me. e4e is the only one who seems to perceive it this way.

Unless he's changed his position, I'd say you misunderstood him...

Paul says that the only way that we can know what sin is, is through the Law.

"I would not have come to know sin except through the Law"

"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

The Law reveals sin. That is it's purpose.

The word sin has been defined as: missing the mark amartanete

It is falling short of the glory (all that God is and does) of God.

It is anything short of perfection.

Sin is lawlessness.

"...apart from the Law sin is dead"

"...where there is no law, there also is no violation"

Would you like to add or remove anything from these?

Paul said that he did not want to sin, when he had not yet received the Spirit. (Romans7). He was still under condemnation until he came to the conclusion that only Christ could set him free from "this body of death".

In fact, that is the purpose of the Law. It brings us under condemnation and shows us that we cannot do that which we want to do. No one had the Spirit before Christ was glorified, and yet everyone wanted to do right by what they knew as law (Romans 2).

When the Spirit is in us, we are free from sin. If sin is still an issue with someone who is in Christ, then they are just being carnally minded. They think that God is still counting sin against them, and they are still under condemnation. They need to renew their minds with the truth, and fix their eyes on Jesus and off of their flesh.

The body is dead because of sin (Romans 8). In fact, the body can do nothing else but sin. Paul even admonishes believers to refrain from doing those things that are counted as sin in the body. Sin is missing the mark, falling short, lawlessness, and whatever is not of faith. A believer is no longer under the Law, and has fulfilled the Law through the death that they died with Christ and the life that they now have in Him. A believer is born of God by the Spirit, they are a new creation in Christ, and are no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit. A believer walks by faith in Christ and what He has done, not what they do.

He clearly teaches that since we are no longer under law, we no longer sin. I agree with you that his is worded more accurately than e4e's nonsense but then again, Sozo is an actual Christian and so one would expect a higher degree of accuracy concerning Christian doctrine.

At any rate, the only objection I have toward either of them on this specific issue is their refusal to use the word 'sin' in a manner which would facilitate clearer understanding by their audiences. Again, it is the message that matters not the words we use to convey it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

There is that 'we've been here forever' argument again. The whole thing is built on error.

Heck, E4E has been around forever, too. That make him error free?

More butter?:chuckle:
Philetus

Yar, it is just the nature of Theology doctrinal positioning to see error, not as pertaining to the doctrine, but pertaining to one's expression and the other's perception.

Ooo Butter!

 

[Philetus]

Yar, it is just the nature of Theology doctrinal positioning to see error, not as pertaining to the doctrine, but pertaining to one's expression and the other's perception.

Ooo Butter!

Dripping.
:chuckle:
I really liked Knight's take ... WE are ALL wrong! That might be the best chance at unity we will ever have. But then we would have to learn a new dimension in humility.

Think we will ever get around to discussing Open Theism? I had given up.

Philetus

 

[Lon]

Isaiah 46:10
God "declares the … things that are not yet done."

Psalm 139:4
"Before a word is on my tongue, you know it completely."

Psalm 139:16
"Your eyes saw my unformed body."

Psalm 139:16
Our days "were written in Your book before one of them came to be."

1 John 3:20
God "knoweth all things."

John 21:17
Peter said, "Lord, you know all things."

Hebrews 4:13
"Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account."

Isaiah 44:7
"Let him declare … what is yet to come –yes, let him foretell what will come."

Isaiah 44:8
"Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?"

Interestingly, this is from an Arminianist

www.biblehelp.org/fore.htm

Millard Erickson expands upon the idea that what is foreknown is foeordained and relates it to human freedom:

It should be noted that if certainty of outcome is inconsistent with freedom, divine foreknowledge, as the Arminian understands that term, presents as much difficulty for human freedom as does divine foreordination. For if God knows what I will do, it must be certain that I am going to do it. If it were not certain, God could not know it; He might be mistaken (I might act differently from what He expects). But if what I will do is certain, then surely I will do it, whether or not I know what I will do. It will happen! But am I then free? In the view of those whose definition of freedom entails the implication that it cannot be certain that a particular event will occur, presumably I am not free. In their view, divine foreknowledge is just as incompatible with human freedom as is divine foreordination.

This line of theological reasoning can be illustrated in the followng syllogism:


What is foreknown is fixed.
What is fixed is certain.
What is certain is predestined.
What is foreknown is predestined.
As was mentioned previously, Christ was crucified according to the foreknowledge of God (1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:23). Does foreknowledge in this context mean that God had no absolute plan or no causative personal relationship to the mission of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ? It would be absurd to deny causation here. In the same way, divine foreknowledge as it relates to any element of God’s predetermined purpose, must relate to God’s active involvement in bringing the event to pass.

http://www.icstc.com/bg/will/fore.html

 

[Lighthouse]

Unless he's changed his position, I'd say you misunderstood him...








He clearly teaches that since we are no longer under law, we no longer sin. I agree with you that his is worded more accurately than e4e's nonsense but then again, Sozo is an actual Christian and so one would expect a higher degree of accuracy concerning Christian doctrine.

At any rate, the only objection I have toward either of them on this specific issue is their refusal to use the word 'sin' in a manner which would facilitate clearer understanding by their audiences. Again, it is the message that matters not the words we use to convey it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

No, you misunderstood him. He read your post, and sent this to me:

I was simply defending that one single aspect about sin being a violation of the Law. He took that to mean that it is the only definition, which you have attempted to correct. Sin is lawlessness, but it is also "whatever is not of faith", "unrighteousness", "knowing the right thing to do and not doing it", etc. ALL of which are missing the mark and falling short of the glory of God.

 

[Clete]

No, you misunderstood him. He read your post, and sent this to me:

I already knew that. Did you read the quotes from him I posted?

Look, the guy doesn't think we sin, okay? He thinks we do things which are unacceptable but he refuses to call those things sin if it happens to be a Christian doing them.

There is no discernible difference between Sozo's and E4e's position on this issue. It's all 1000% about semantics. The bottom line is that we do things that we shouldn't all the time. Everyone in the entire Christian universe calls those things sinful except for Sozo and E4e and they therefore create fifty thousand time more confusion that is necessary. I even agree with Sozo's theology on this point and I can't even articulate it in a way that he will agree with! They are stuck on words rather than on the concepts they are intended to convey and whether or not I am conveying Sozo's position in a way that he find 100% acceptable in every semantic detail or not, the fact remains that if there is any difference between his position and e4e's, the only two who can discern it are Sozo and God Himself. The rest of us are all doomed to endless and inescapable confusion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

I already knew that. Did you read the quotes from him I posted?

Look, the guy doesn't think we sin, okay? He thinks we do things which are unacceptable but he refuses to call those things sin if it happens to be a Christian doing them.

There is no discernible difference between Sozo's and E4e's position on this issue. It's all 1000% about semantics. The bottom line is that we do things that we shouldn't all the time. Everyone in the entire Christian universe calls those things sinful except for Sozo and E4e and they therefore create fifty thousand time more confusion that is necessary. I even agree with Sozo's theology on this point and I can't even articulate it in a way that he will agree with! They are stuck on words rather than on the concepts they are intended to convey and whether or not I am conveying Sozo's position in a way that he find 100% acceptable in every semantic detail or not, the fact remains that if there is any difference between his position and e4e's, the only two who can discern it are Sozo and God Himself. The rest of us are all doomed to endless and inescapable confusion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo doesn't worry with the definition of sin. The issue is the definition of Christian. And if you want, I can get that straight from him.

 

[Delmar]

Where is the petition to unban sozo? It is better than him being a ghost-writer through LH.

I love Sozo! Sozo is a friend of mine and I would gladly have him for a neighbor, but if Sozo chooses to address things through a third party, it works pretty well and, it prevents him from flaming out. Let us also remember that if he wishes to be reinstated he knows who to contact.

 

[Philetus]

I love Sozo! Sozo is a friend of mine and I would gladly have him for a neighbor, but if Sozo chooses to address things through a third party, it works pretty well and, it prevents him from flaming out. Let us also remember that if he wishes to be reinstated he knows who to contact.

Maybe Lighthouse supports the view. I like both of those guys. I know Sozo from the forums and Lighthouse in the flesh. Got no beef with either. But what the heck does that subject have to do with Open Theism? (except that it shows up everywhere E4E posts)

 

[Clete]

Sozo doesn't worry with the definition of sin. The issue is the definition of Christian. And if you want, I can get that straight from him.

I agree with Delmar, Sozo is a great guy. He's got a temper that gets out of control from time to time, but who doesn't? And like I've said already, I agree with his position concerning the believers perfection in Christ but the fact that he doesn't worry about the definition of sin is precisely the problem! He means one thing by it and doesn't care who he leaves behind because of the confusion that he could have avoided and intentionally did not. In fact, he seems to relish in the fact that people don't understand, which is my entire point. My point isn't that Sozo is wrong in his theology, its that he couldn't care less about articulating the principles in such a way that people understand them. That's my ENTIRE point.

Resting in Him,
Clete