ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Nang]

I have read several of your posts, and I find them to be of the same quality drivel as you post here: You make unsupported assertions about Open Theism, build straw men, and then burn them.

To be honest, after a few, I got bored with the same old meaningless drivel you spit out.

Muz

I feel sorry for you, Michael. You are unteachable.

 

[themuzicman]

I feel sorry for you, Michael. You are unteachable.

This is exactly the kind of drivel that lets me know that Calvinism is bankrupt.

Muz

 

[Nang]

This is exactly the kind of drivel that lets me know that Calvinism is bankrupt.

Muz

It is not drivel . . .

Over the years, I have come to realize you grasp some biblical concepts, that others do not see.

And yet, you are not open to developing these insights.

I cannot teach you, because I am a female, but AMR and Michael T. could teach you a lot, if you weren't so hostile to them and closed-minded to their views.

It truly makes me sad.

Nang

 

[bling]

If God knew Adam and Eve were going to eat from the tree, why did He tell them not to?

Anyone with a little common sense would realize given enough time, with only human ability, and given a choice with perceived desirable alternatives people will eventually sin. All humans that become mature adults will sin and God knows that, so for the same reason God tells us not to sin (knowing we will) God told Adam and Eve not to sin.

There is a huge problem with the Garden, which can be solved after sinning outside the Garden. That does not mean it was God’s fault Adam and Eve sinned, but God would quench His own desire to stop them and at great personal sacrifice and Love for Adam and Eve, God allowed them to sin. God is doing all He can to help each individual to achieve their personal desired objective in life.

 

[themuzicman]

It is not drivel . . .

Over the years, I have come to realize you grasp some biblical concepts, that others do not see.

And yet, you are not open to developing these insights.

I cannot teach you, because I am a female, but AMR and Michael T. could teach you a lot, if you weren't so hostile to them and closed-minded to their views.

It truly makes me sad.

Nang

You know, every time AMR or Michael T. go about spouting their systematic theologies, they commit some of the most obvious exegetical errors, which have been pointed out to both you and them, and yet they continue to build their house on a faulty foundation.

And, of course, when they try to address Open Theism, they have to build straw men to attack, because they either cannot grasp the concepts, or are afraid that OVT just might be right.

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

To be honest, after a few, I got bored with the same old meaningless drivel you spit out.

It is your own professed boredom that makes you the ineffectual exegete you must aspire to overcome. In thread after thread you have been exposed as someone who has developed your own erroneous personal doctrines that fall outside the clear teachings of the Scriptures. For someone who never misses a beat to proclaim your own exegetical superiority, your boredom unmasks you as intellectually lazy. You have just enough newly acquired knowledge to be misguided at best, dangerous at worst, nothing more. Perhaps in a half-dozen years or so we will be able to engage on a more equal footing. For now, the milk you are drinking is sour.

As Nang notes, you are indeed unteachable, for you clearly, pridefully revere your own teaching; unwilling to humble yourself as did the Ethiopian, asking, "How can I [understand], unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:27-31)

 

[Lighthouse]

To be just. To be fair.

What a joke. According to you God predestined that they would eat of the tree, and He still told them not to. That's not just, or fair. It's stupid. You claim God is stupid. Not ignorant, mind you, but stupid like laws against spitting on the sidewalk are stupid. You claim He does things that are useless, pointless and futile.

Adam and Eve were created under the Law of God. God revealed to them what the Law and commands were. God revealed to them exactly what the consequences would be when they disobeyed His commands.

So God decided to let them know, "You're going to eat from that tree, but I'm telling you not to, anyway, for no reason, because you're going to eat from it, no matter what. And when you do what I told you not to, even thought I knew you were going to before I told you not to, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop you from doing it, because it's already settled, you're going to die."

(Note: God never gave Adam an "if" . . .God gave Adam a "when." [Gen. 3:5])[/quote]
Is there a reason you're using a quote of Satan's?

Reading through the O.T. of the many judgments from God against sinful persons and sinful nations, one sees God always gives fair warnings of what their wicked actions will bring upon themselves.

And? Your point? God tells them that they're going to commit sin, and tells them that they will be punished for it, but that they cannot stop themselves from doing it? And you call that fair? I'm surprised anyone would even call it a warning. Warnings are made to stop people from doing things. If it can't be stopped, how is that a warning?

And it is this God-given knowledge that makes all men inexcusable for their evil deeds. (Romans 1:18, 19)

Even though there's absolutely no way to stop from doing it? God's calling out from Heaven, "I predestined you to sin, but it's inexcusable"? You really beleive that?

 

[themuzicman]

It is your own professed boredom that makes you the ineffectual exegete you must aspire to overcome. In thread after thread you have been exposed as someone who has developed your own erroneous personal doctrines that fall outside the clear teachings of the Scriptures. For someone who never misses a beat to proclaim your own exegetical superiority, your boredom unmasks you as intellectually lazy. You have just enough newly acquired knowledge to be misguided at best, dangerous at worst, nothing more. Perhaps in a half-dozen years or so we will be able to engage on a more equal footing. For now, the milk you are drinking is sour.

As Nang notes, you are indeed unteachable, for you clearly, pridefully revere your own teaching; unwilling to humble yourself as did the Ethiopian, asking, "How can I [understand], unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:27-31)

LOL... I've pointed out so many exegetical problems with things Calvinists around here have said, it's amazing that you continue to post.

Would you like me to point out some of the strawmen in your response to Bob?

Muz

 

[Lighthouse]

Anyone with a little common sense would realize given enough time, with only human ability, and given a choice with perceived desirable alternatives people will eventually sin. All humans that become mature adults will sin and God knows that, so for the same reason God tells us not to sin (knowing we will) God told Adam and Eve not to sin.

So God knew for certain that Satan would tempt and deceive them, and that they would fall for it, even though there were no grounds for suspecting such a thing? And He knew exactly when it would happen, and yet told them not to do it anyway? Seriously, does that actually make sense to you?

There is a huge problem with the Garden, which can be solved after sinning outside the Garden. That does not mean it was God’s fault Adam and Eve sinned, but God would quench His own desire to stop them and at great personal sacrifice and Love for Adam and Eve, God allowed them to sin. God is doing all He can to help each individual to achieve their personal desired objective in life.

And what exactly was this problem with the Garden?

 

[Philetus]

When will you dig in, read, and offer something in response worth addressing? For you to say that my answers to tens of questions on the topic, posed by one of the resident leaders of the TOL unsettled theism community, is not addressing the topic is most telling of your sincerity. Shoo fly, don't bother me.

Patman was wrong about you AMR ... your head isn't up in the clouds at all.

The only way you can preserve your doctrine is to fight your own strawman account of Open Theism. You simply restate over and over again your Calvinism. You haven't addressed the challenges once.

Philetus

 

[Lighthouse]

Patman was wrong about you AMR ... your head isn't up in the clouds at all.

It's up something, though.

 

[bling]

Light House asked:

So God knew for certain that Satan would tempt and deceive them, and that they would fall for it, even though there were no grounds for suspecting such a thing? And He knew exactly when it would happen, and yet told them not to do it anyway? Seriously, does that actually make sense to you?

God knew for certain, Satan would tempt you, before you were tempted and deceive you and eventually (really within a short time of reaching maturity), you would fall. God knew Adam and Eve, way better then I could know human nature. I could easily surmise that given likely alternative choices (the perceived pleasure of sin for a season) with an infinite amount of time, humans would eventually sin. That does not take a lot of probability mathematics. I am not saying God needed to know they would sin that time, just they would eventually sin.

Are you suggesting God did not know enough about satan to figure out He would tempt Adam and Eve?
God had only two humans on earth at that time, so are you suggesting He did not there to hear satan speak when he started his deceiving?

Are you assuming sin has no place in the development of humans?

The only way we know; for mature adult humans to fulfill their object is after they have sinned. I realize Christ did not sin, but that was Deity living in human form, which for humans today can not be achieved until after we have sinned.
The question then becomes could Adam and Eve fulfilled their objective in life without sinning?
You can not assume they could have, because they did not, or can we assume they could not have since they did.
We also can not assume God would not be merciful to them like He is with all humans and forgive and forget their sins at some later date if they sought His forgiveness.
Adam and Eve where the best humans representatives we could have since they had bodies with the help of the tree of life could last forever. They would not have inherited any mutated genes. The environment was perfect. They had been trained up to maturity by the best parents you could have (God pre programmed them to maturity). So if anyone could succeed in the Garden a they should have. But also by showing that Adam and Eve did not fulfill their object in the Garden; it tells us given a similar situation we would not succeed and we need something different. At some point in our lives we will probably ask, “Why would God allow this to happen”? In a way we are asking, “Why are we not in a Garden type situation?” The answer is, “It is not a good situation to fulfill your objective, so tragedies have purpose.”

Light House asked:
And what exactly was this problem with the Garden?

Would you rather be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was depend on your personal ability to obey God’s commands or would you rather be in a place where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on God’s love and mercy?

 

[RobE]

The problem of Evil is one that open theism addresses quite nicely, and one that Calvinism brings up more frequently. I get that you are not bothered by your answer/thoughts, and I get that a person's opinion of an answer is not what makes it right or wrong. But your answer doesn't address the problem. You seem to know that.

Actually, I would be more than happy to hear the way open theism addresses the problem of evil. This is the first question I ever asked you. How does open theism address the problem of God allowing evil within creation?

I beg to differ. Some "solutions" are akin to tossing out the baby with the bathwater. Unsettled theism's solution is to dilute the sovereignty of God, making Him subject to the wills of His creatures. That is not a solution, but an egalitarian rationalization of what man thinks God should be like, not what God told us He is like.

I would say, AMR, that open theism has no solution whatsoever to the problem of evil. God standing by and allowing evil without foreknowledge is no different than God foreknowing evil would occur and allowing it.

 

[RobE]

If God knew Adam and Eve were going to eat from the tree, why did He tell them not to?

So that they would. God foresaw that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree if He commanded them not to. Lucifer had to have his reason as well. If God had told them not to wallow in the mud. They would have. The law increases sin. Got kids?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

When will you dump this straw man and actually address Open Theism?

Try
to
keep
up
with
things,

including

real
sound
biblical
rigorous
exegesis

Q.E.D.

As the small sampling of evidence (from hundreds) clearly shows, your statement that I have not actually addressed unsettled theism is either made to be divisive or because you are just are too lazy to keep up.

Like I said to you many months ago when you persisted in showing your lack of depth via muzegesis:

Muz, please stop until you learn more. You are just embarrassing yourself. I believe you said somewhere that you were attending an orthodox seminary. Have you tried some of these lines on your professors?

 

[patman]

Actually, I would be more than happy to hear the way open theism addresses the problem of evil. This is the first question I ever asked you. How does open theism address the problem of God allowing evil within creation?

The gift of freewill, the uncertain future hide the evil to come, and perfect creation shows God had no desire nor intentions for evil.

 

[patman]

Your analogy ignores the fact that you are not God. Let's stay focused on God and His revelations to form doctrine. You continue to use human rationalizations for the mind of God. The Scriptures are clear, God is completely sovereign and He holds man responsible for his actions. Trying to reconcile the two in humanistic terms is futile. ........ otherwise we are back to the original trigger of our conversation--you are not precise, seek only to offer homilies and have not shown yourself worthy of any effort to engage sincerely.

AMR

Even if you were right about me not being precise, it is your job as one who assumes the position as a teacher to reach out to me. Instead, you have something against me, yet here I am trying to dialog with you.

It would be good to let someone test your beliefs. I did, and when I allowed it to happen, I became open theist. I grew up in your belief system, but once I stopped listen to what others were telling me and let scripture speak for itself, I repented of it. Then I found TOL.

I know you don't put much value in my words. But your pride is making you think you are above others, and because of that you have lost the ability to relate to those who disagree with you. You shut people out who you should reach out to.

You should be excited to share with me your understanding. But that is more of a job for you, it appears.

Beyond our views on open theism, we are different in our passion. You think I am lost in my views right? I have never heard someone say to the lost that they are unworthy.

If I cannot get you to talk to me about Open Theism, I at least want to bring this shame on you.

"[you/patman] have not shown yourself worthy of any effort to engage sincerely"
-Ask Mr. Religion

Who else is unworthy of your "truth" AMR?

Now every one knows you think people are unworthy of your witness.

Way to be the worst witness in the world, AMR.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Even if you were right about me not being precise, it is your job as one who assumes the position as a teacher to reach out to me. Instead, you have something against me, yet here I am trying to dialog with you.

Patman,

Having taught in universities and elsewhere for many years a teacher soon learns that there are those that are not teachable. Thus, educational triage is the rule-(1)leave those that are not going to learn to themselves, (2)teach those that would fail otherwise, and (3)the rest can learn by themselves no matter what the teacher is up to in the classroom. If persons continue in resorting to ad hominem, sarcasm, and unwillingness to dialog at the level the subject requires they place themselves in the first category. There is an economy of time and effort at issue here. Do I spend the time and research (yes, I research my comments carefully given the scrutiny they receive herein) where I will be ineffective or where there is some possibility that my efforts will bear fruit? That is strictly up to you. There is no one here who can honestly claim that I refuse to engage with them if they engage on my terms. It is my time, so I get to define my terms. You don't have to like them, but they are what they are if you want a dialog. See here and here. That last link is where I see things between you and I at present, so there is some glimmer of a chance we can make progress. It is strictly up to you.

It would be good to let someone test your beliefs. I did, and when I allowed it to happen, I became open theist. I grew up in your belief system, but once I stopped listen to what others were telling me and let scripture speak for itself, I repented of it. Then I found TOL.

There are many that sincerely believe this or that, but sincerity is never the test of the validity of one's belief. Sincere people around the world have constructed idols from their beliefs and go off worshiping them. There are many herein that eschew any sort of appeal to the masters that have preceded us, thinking that they are able to discern complex doctrines by simply reading the Scriptures, or wrongly assuming anything men have written outside of the Scriptures is unworthy of study or consideration. Very few persons can lay claim to a solitary achievement of mastery of the complexities of doctrine--that is why we read the texts of those few while checking them against the Word of God.

The study of God, theology, is every Christian's calling in order that we may prove out our beliefs, be ready to defend them, and not bring shame to God. I am fortunate to be blessed to have a calling that actually pays me to study the Scriptures. Despite what you may think by my writing style, such a calling is humbling. The fact that my words are lengthy and often tedious comes from an appreciation for the need to be precise when dealing with sacred topics. There are no unneeded words in the Scriptures, nor should there be entropy in discussions about them.

Looked at from another direction, if our view of God is wrong, no amount of good works can erase the idolatry we have erected in our heart. So, both go together: faith (theology) and praxis (life). One guides, corrects, and balances the other. What if our faith is in something we have imagined? What if we have created an intellectual idol? Theology is the guarantor, the check point, and the touchstone, that our faith is legitimate.

I know you don't put much value in my words. But your pride is making you think you are above others, and because of that you have lost the ability to relate to those who disagree with you. You shut people out who you should reach out to.

You assume facts that are not in evidence, Patman. If I were as you assume, you would not be reading these very words. As I have stated, I have a set of rules for engagement and I try to stick to them. So far I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Now every one knows you think people are unworthy of your witness.

Way to be the worst witness in the world, AMR.

Sigh. Like I said, it is strictly up to you.

 

[Nang]

I at least want to bring this shame on you.

"[you/patman] have not shown yourself worthy of any effort to engage sincerely"
-Ask Mr. Religion

Who else is unworthy of your "truth" AMR?

Is this not considered rude and against TOL rules?

(Sorry I stepped on your important post to Patman, AMR. It was unintentional.)



Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well, the large print sure is easy to read by my old eyes late at night, sitting here under the stars on the pool deck.