Mystery
New member
How do you get closer to who you already fully are?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
patman
Active member
How do you get closer to who you already fully are?
Jesus put on the flesh. When he did so he gave up some of his godly attributes, don't you agree?
elected4ever
New member
What would most Christians say to such a challenge? Oh, I"m a sinner so I sin They do not believe who they are in Christ Jesus. Jesus knew who He was and we should know who we are also. But no, the church teaches that the christian is still a sinner and cannot overcome their old nature, as if that is something left for us to accomplish. Little do Christians know that they have already overcome. It is not what we must accomplish but what Christ has already accomplished in us. You are of God little children but it does not yet appear what we shall be but this we know that when He does appear we shall be like Him because we shall see Him as He is. Fact is we don't have to prove nothing. Not to Satan, not to other men. Not to ourselves or to anybody or to any thing. We should know who we are and for sure, if you are of God. He knows who you are.
themuzicman
Well-known member
elected4ever
New member
No, he gives us a reason to believe. That is different than control.
How do you get closer to who you already fully are?
In His preexistent Deity, there was perfect oneness with the Father.
In His humanity, there was still oneness, but a voluntary limitation. Jesus prayed to communicate with the Father. It is not a matter of spatial closeness, but intimacy despite being on earth with the limitations of flesh while the Father is in heaven.
I and the Father are one is still true in the incarnation.
elected4ever
New member
You are saying that just because Jesus was in the form of a man that the word lost its preexistant perfect union with God? How So?
Mystery
New member
Ultimately, yes
Mystery
New member
You are right, but muz is not going to understand that, and I'm not sure you do either.
themuzicman
Well-known member
elected4ever
New member
:dizzy: :nono: :loser: :dunce:
Well, the reason you bring up the subject of "will" is because if humans have an "OV will", then God might not be able to bring about the eschaton as He foresees/decrees/causes it. If humans have an "SV will" and the future is exhaustively foreknown/exhaustively decreed/exhaustively caused (a redundant statement; but please don't sidetrack yourself), then God is assured of having us see what He exhaustively foreknew/exhaustively decreed/exhaustively caused and said in the bible.
Obviously, as people having a conversation in English require; what are the definitions of an "OV will" and an "SV will"?
SO BUT BEFORE WE CAN GET TO THAT. We need to know... are we having a conversation in English? I am.
Well, you can answer in that thread then. I did respond twice, nicely, to you there.
I did not say or mean that He lost His perfect union. I would say He grew as a man (Lk. 2:52) and had some limitations He did not have in His pre-existence (Phil. 2).
Mystery,
We've come full circle and have made very little progress. My argument from definition is a valid form of argument. My logic is sound and thus the conclusion true. You reject my conclusion based on the fact that you reject one of the premises, that premise being the definition of the term 'righteous' but you offer no counter definition of righteous that does not beg the question or render it meaningless when applied to God or His actions. Thus since you've offered no counter argument your rejection of my conclusion is irrational and therefore invalid. In order for you to rectify that situation you must answer the question that this exchange began with...
Why is God (i.e. God's nature) righteous?
I submit that you cannot meaningfully answer that question, although I still would like for you to try. I think the discussion is worthwhile whether we ever agree or not.
Further, your position that righteousness has nothing to do with one's actions but rather the other way around I do not believe to be Biblical. The Bible ties one's righteousness to one's actions...
Notice that I do not dispute that one's actions are rooted in one's nature but that point really only avoids the question. Why is the nature of a person righteous? It is because they decide to act in a particular way (i.e. in the best interests of others). The action is done after the decision is made to act, which is made from within the person's spirit. Decisions are the actions of the soul and so saying that people act righteously because they are righteous only backs the question up a step and doesn't answer the real question being asked, nor does it refute the notion that it is one's actions that makes them righteous, it only changes the subject from one sort of action to another.
Now this is all speaking from the perspective of someone who is truly righteous, of course. The Christian is righteous because they have been declared righteous, not because of any action on their own part and I totally understand that and don't want to allow this point to cloud the issue because what I'm saying does not contradict this aspect of the gospel in any way. We have been declared righteous apart from our actions but not apart from any action whatsoever. It was "through one Man’s righteous act, the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life" and so even though our righteousness is an imputed righteousness, Biblically, it is still tied directly to an action, an action that began as a decision made within the Spirit of the Living God to act on our behalf.
How am I wrong?
Resting in Him,
Clete
We've come full circle and have made very little progress. My argument from definition is a valid form of argument. My logic is sound and thus the conclusion true. You reject my conclusion based on the fact that you reject one of the premises, that premise being the definition of the term 'righteous' but you offer no counter definition of righteous that does not beg the question or render it meaningless when applied to God or His actions. Thus since you've offered no counter argument your rejection of my conclusion is irrational and therefore invalid. In order for you to rectify that situation you must answer the question that this exchange began with...
Why is God (i.e. God's nature) righteous?
I submit that you cannot meaningfully answer that question, although I still would like for you to try. I think the discussion is worthwhile whether we ever agree or not.
Further, your position that righteousness has nothing to do with one's actions but rather the other way around I do not believe to be Biblical. The Bible ties one's righteousness to one's actions...
Judges 5:11 Far from the noise of the archers, among the watering places,There they shall recount the righteous acts of the LORD, The righteous acts for His villagers in Israel; Then the people of the LORD shall go down to the gates.
1 Samuel 12:7 Now therefore, stand still, that I may reason with you before the LORD concerning all the righteous acts of the LORD which He did to you and your fathers:
1 Kings 8:32 then hear in heaven, and act, and judge Your servants, condemning the wicked, bringing his way on his head, and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his righteousness.
2 Chronicles 6:23 then hear from heaven, and act, and judge Your servants, bringing retribution on the wicked by bringing his way on his own head, and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his righteousness.
Psalm 7:8 The LORD shall judge the peoples;Judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness, And according to my integrity within me.
Ezekiel 7:3 Now the end has come upon you, And I will send My anger against you; I will judge you according to your ways, And I will repay you for all your abominations.
Ezekiel 36:19 So I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed throughout the countries; I judged them according to their ways and their deeds.
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
Revelation 19:8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
1 Samuel 12:7 Now therefore, stand still, that I may reason with you before the LORD concerning all the righteous acts of the LORD which He did to you and your fathers:
1 Kings 8:32 then hear in heaven, and act, and judge Your servants, condemning the wicked, bringing his way on his head, and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his righteousness.
2 Chronicles 6:23 then hear from heaven, and act, and judge Your servants, bringing retribution on the wicked by bringing his way on his own head, and justifying the righteous by giving him according to his righteousness.
Psalm 7:8 The LORD shall judge the peoples;Judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness, And according to my integrity within me.
Ezekiel 7:3 Now the end has come upon you, And I will send My anger against you; I will judge you according to your ways, And I will repay you for all your abominations.
Ezekiel 36:19 So I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed throughout the countries; I judged them according to their ways and their deeds.
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
Revelation 19:8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
Notice that I do not dispute that one's actions are rooted in one's nature but that point really only avoids the question. Why is the nature of a person righteous? It is because they decide to act in a particular way (i.e. in the best interests of others). The action is done after the decision is made to act, which is made from within the person's spirit. Decisions are the actions of the soul and so saying that people act righteously because they are righteous only backs the question up a step and doesn't answer the real question being asked, nor does it refute the notion that it is one's actions that makes them righteous, it only changes the subject from one sort of action to another.
Now this is all speaking from the perspective of someone who is truly righteous, of course. The Christian is righteous because they have been declared righteous, not because of any action on their own part and I totally understand that and don't want to allow this point to cloud the issue because what I'm saying does not contradict this aspect of the gospel in any way. We have been declared righteous apart from our actions but not apart from any action whatsoever. It was "through one Man’s righteous act, the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life" and so even though our righteousness is an imputed righteousness, Biblically, it is still tied directly to an action, an action that began as a decision made within the Spirit of the Living God to act on our behalf.
How am I wrong?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Forgive me for butting in here, but I need clarification.
Your premise is: Through "one Man's" ("Christ," I assume) righteous act, men are justified and declared righteous.
Your conclusion is: Righteousness is "tied directly to an action," which was a decision made "within the Spirit of the Living God."
You have switched from accrediting the Son of God with righteousness, to a decision made by God the Holy Spirit, have you not?
What was the specific "righteous act" that justified sinners? When was it decided, and who performed it?
Nang
patman
Active member
A=B
B=C
Therefore
A=C
God = controls man
Man = commits sin
therefore
God = controls man's sin
According to that logic.... why would you disagree?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I realize you are trying to be clever, but you clearly misunderstand the concepts behind your statements. Please take the time to refresh your understanding of foreordination and foreknowledge. Here is a very nice (ahem) introduction. And here (see point about Peter) is a useful practical example to make the distinctions more clear to you.
This has been discussed ad infinitum by me. The really, really, short versions:
open theism: the ability to choose otherwise
classical theism: choosing what one is most inclined to choose
The longer, more erudite version is here.classical theism: choosing what one is most inclined to choose
No, apparently you are having a wonderful little conversation with yourself using Hobbit speak and sarcasm. Do you always speak to yourself this way? Now I can respond at the same sarcastic level if you prefer (I am doing so right now), but, as is patently obvious to any casual observer, you have showed up to a gunfight with a butter knife and it just does not seem very fair.:nono:
But now let's be serious, for we are discussing sacred and holy topics.
Yorzhik, I hold in disdain the common TOL snare tactics of playing "twenty questions" or "wack-a-mole". So how about asking sincere questions, accompanied by some motivating rationale, that demonstrate a willingness and openness to understand different perspectives. I will be happy to respond in kind.
nope.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't care what you and e4e are discussing, but I will see your post hoc, ergo propter hoc and raise you with a hasty generalization.:think:
- Status