ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Here's what you said concerning Christ coming in the flesh.
You say that Christ came in the likeness of "created" flesh
likeness
One entry found for likeness.
Main Entry: like·ness
Pronunciation: 'lIk-n&s
Function: noun
1 : COPY, PORTRAIT
2 : APPEARANCE, SEMBLANCE
3 : the quality or state of being like : RESEMBLANCE
synonyms LIKENESS, SIMILARITY, RESEMBLANCE, SIMILITUDE, ANALOGY mean agreement or correspondence in details. LIKENESS implies a closer correspondence than SIMILARITY which often implies that things are merely somewhat alike <a remarkable likeness to his late father> <some similarity between the two cases>. RESEMBLANCE implies similarity chiefly in appearance or external qualities <statements that bear little resemblance to the truth>. SIMILITUDE applies chiefly to correspondence between abstractions <two schools of social thought showing points of similitude>. ANALOGY implies likeness or parallelism in relations rather than in appearance or qualities <pointed out analogies to past wars>.
Considering the definition of likeness and the fact that you put "created" in quotations, you're obviously not admitting that you have your own idea of what "in the flesh" means which to you is something other than literal so I hardly see it as justifiable to claim that Clete is bearing false witness.
No. Many people have been deep in red but this alone has never been a reason to be banned. Although sometimes one might have obtained the red because they've continually gone against TOL rules but it isn't the rep that gets them banned but what they've done against the rules.
If your being in the red is a result of how wrong somebody thinks you are in your theology when it comes this issue, no matter how much you might get, this is not against TOL rules.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yes, and I added, "as a Man" and I did so with reference to Holy Scripture that says:
"[Jesus Christ came] in the likeness of men and being found in the appearance as a man . . ." Philippians 2:7&8
If you do not consider the language to be correct, you are criticizing Scripture, not me.
And I put "created" in quotes to make distinction between mortals and "uncreated" God who came in the flesh, which is a literal and important distinction.
I have also testified that I believe the Son of God came in the flesh, so there should be no more discussion on this point.
Thank you very much for clarifying the rules and TOL policy for me. I will simply not worry about the negs but will enjoy the positives when they come!
:cloud9:
Nang
patman
Active member
Matthew 13:35 (New King James Version)
"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:"
“ I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world."
Footnotes: Matthew 13:35 Psalm 78:2
Psalm 78:2-4 (New King James Version)
2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, 3 Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us.
4 We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.
Question: How is it that "things kept secret from the foundation/beginning of the world according to Matthew, are things that "we have heard and known" according to the Psalms?
Whatever is kept secret or hidden from the "foundation of the world" would not have been known to anybody until Christ revealed it. But if these things have been hidden since the time of King David then the Greek phrase "ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου", found in Matthew 13:35, should not be rendered "from the foundation of the world" but "because of the spiritual disintegration (sin and rebellion) of the world"--καταβολῆς means to throw down, destroy, or disintegrate not to build up.
Revelation 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Again the phrase "ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου" is used and it makes more sense to render it "the Lamb slain because of the spiritual disintegration (sin and rebellion) of the world".
To say that Christ was slain before the world began makes no sense. To say that Christ was slain because of sin and rebellion makes perfect sense.
"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:"
“ I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world."
Footnotes: Matthew 13:35 Psalm 78:2
Psalm 78:2-4 (New King James Version)
2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, 3 Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us.
4 We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.
Question: How is it that "things kept secret from the foundation/beginning of the world according to Matthew, are things that "we have heard and known" according to the Psalms?
Whatever is kept secret or hidden from the "foundation of the world" would not have been known to anybody until Christ revealed it. But if these things have been hidden since the time of King David then the Greek phrase "ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου", found in Matthew 13:35, should not be rendered "from the foundation of the world" but "because of the spiritual disintegration (sin and rebellion) of the world"--καταβολῆς means to throw down, destroy, or disintegrate not to build up.
Revelation 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Again the phrase "ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου" is used and it makes more sense to render it "the Lamb slain because of the spiritual disintegration (sin and rebellion) of the world".
To say that Christ was slain before the world began makes no sense. To say that Christ was slain because of sin and rebellion makes perfect sense.
Lon
Well-known member
In my analogy, that wouldn't be complicated. It would be fairly simple using scripture to discern that matter. Try something tougher like the triune view. How crystal clear is that one for you? I've got some letters left that need value placements.
We are not born sinful
David has a sister, Abigail, who's father is not David's father--but they have the same mother!
II Samuel 17:24 Then David went to Mahanaim. And Absalom crossed over the Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him. 25 And Absalom made Amasa captain of the army instead of Joab. This Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Jithra, an Israelite, who had gone in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, Joab’s mother. 26 So Israel and Absalom encamped in the land of Gilead.
I Cronicles 2:13 Jesse begot Eliab his firstborn, Abinadab the second, Shimea the third, 14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, and David the seventh. 16 Now their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah were Abishai, Joab, and Asahel—three. 17 Abigail bore Amasa; and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
David has a sister, Abigail, who's father is not David's father--but they have the same mother!
II Samuel 17:24 Then David went to Mahanaim. And Absalom crossed over the Jordan, he and all the men of Israel with him. 25 And Absalom made Amasa captain of the army instead of Joab. This Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Jithra, an Israelite, who had gone in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, Joab’s mother. 26 So Israel and Absalom encamped in the land of Gilead.
I Cronicles 2:13 Jesse begot Eliab his firstborn, Abinadab the second, Shimea the third, 14 Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, and David the seventh. 16 Now their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah were Abishai, Joab, and Asahel—three. 17 Abigail bore Amasa; and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Is it really all about you, Clete? Do you and Nang know one another?
And the point is exactly what here? Yes, your actions, even mocking ones, are foreordained. Fortunately you or I just don't know what actions have been...until we take these actions.
You clearly do not understand Calvinism or you are just getting carried away with mockery. Rise above this. Every person who loves God and has a true desire for salvation in Christ is among the elect, for the non-elect never have this love or this desire.
"We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death," I John 3:14.
"He that is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God," I John 3:9.
That is, it is against the elect believer's inner principles to commit sin. When this person thinks deeply and soberly about it, sin is repulsive to him and he hates it. Warfield writes,
"Peter exhorts us, II Peter 1:10, to make our 'calling and election sure' precisely by diligence in good works. He does not mean that by good works we may secure from God a decree of election in our behalf. He means that by expanding the germ of spiritual life which we have received from God into its full efflorescence, by 'working out' our salvation, of course not without Christ but in Christ, we can make ourselves sure that we have really received the election to which we make claim. . . . Good works become thus the mark and test of election, and when taken in the comprehensive sense in which Peter is here thinking of them, they are the only marks and tests of election. We can never know that we are elected of God to eternal life except by manifesting in our lives the fruits of election—faith and virtue, knowledge and temperance, patience and godliness, love of brethren. . . . It is idle to seek assurance of election outside of holiness of life. Precisely what God chose His people to before the foundation of the world was that they should be holy. Holiness, because it is the necessary product, is therefore the sure sign of election."
So how may I or you or Nang know that we are among the elect? You may just as well ask, "How do I know that I am a loyal American citizen?" "How shall I distinguish between white and black, or between sweet and bitter?" A person knows instinctively what his attitude is toward his country, and the Scriptures and conscience give as clear evidence of whether or not we are among God's people as white and black do of their color, or sweet and bitter do of their taste. Every person who is already among the regenerated should be fully conscious of the fact. Paul exhorted the Corinthians, "Try your own selves, whether ye are of the faith; prove your own selves. Or know ye not as to your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you? Unless indeed ye be reprobate," II Cor. 13:5.Again, the point is what here, other than your being miffed.
I think Nang was speaking of those who have felt the regeneration of God's grace, as I have explained above.
Your lack of understanding of Calvinism is striking. Now I know why I am here.
I fully admit that some Calvinists have done a disservice to Christ's great commission and have been less than enthusiastic evangelists. But that is not the doctrine and some of the greatest evangelists were/are Calvinists. We evangelize so that the elect will hear the message..as was predestined by God for us to do. That God can save others without hearing the message is not in dispute Clete, unless you want to deny salvation of children or the thief on the cross.Glory to God, all powerful, all knowing, and truly Sovereign!
How about Sanders' and Pinnock's "new model" of God:
1. Constantly modifying his purposes to adjust to humanity’s choices, often caught off guard by the unexpected, disappointed by how things work out, vulnerable, mistaken in his expectations and open to failure.
2. His promises and predictions in Scripture dealing with the future events are built on the quicksand of possibilities.
3. His ability to preserve the saints is less powerful than his creatures' free will, so what would prevent them from turning away from the faith and forfeiting our salvation? Their hope and confidence of salvation would always be in jeopardy.
4. He has chosen to govern the world adding his believers' input into his decision-making processes. Consequently, he is dependent on the requests of his believers even to the point of altering or reversing his own plans. The future is partially open, waiting for their input through prayer. So....
- If he is really dependent on humanity’s free will, he may be powerless to respond to your single prayer at the expense of someone else’s freedom.
- If God is not in control over the operations of nature and the conduct of men, there is little motivation to pray.
- If God exercises only general sovereignty, and not specific sovereignty, your issues are probably too small for him to be bothered with.
- If God cannot bring to fruition his own eternal purposes unless we pray, then your will is effectively supreme and God is dethroned. So why take time to pray?
- If God’s purposes are changing every hour, what comfort is it to be granted a petition one day and then denied it the next day?
- If God is finite with limited knowledge, it is possible that our petitions may be missed entirely amidst the millions of prayers offered every minute.
I'll take the old model: sovereign, immutable, omnipotent, exhaustively omniscient.Ahh, yes, it is so much better that the pride already in every man's heart be more inflamed by making autonomous, self-important, man a "partner" with his god, cooperating, as it were, with the running of creation. I mean, after all, this is so rational; for man is not a fickle creature and this is the way things naturally should be in this world, right?
No, Clete you are not. You are an angry and petulant young man, all the while signing off that you are "resting in Him". One has only to read the cruelty and mocking venom in your words, then to arrive at this phrase and see how it speaks volumes about who you want to be yet who you really are inside, for out of the abundance of your heart your mouth speaks.
As a minister of God, I rebuke you now in front of all who read these words. I call upon you to repent of your cruelties and vanities for your witness has become a stumbling block to others.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Are you saying that I and other practicing Calvinists are not Christians, but are pagans? What exactly are you saying?
I am saying that if you believe that God did not humble Himself and become a man, and that God did not die, which both Nang and her husband believe and strongly defend in order to maintain the idea that God cannot change, you are not saved because you have denied the gospel.
I am further saying that if you believe God to be selfish, you are guilty of gross blasphemy, which is quite likely if you deny that God became a man and died. Both Nang and her husband will also defend this incredibly disgusting notion and even declare it to be the basis for their entire belief system!
Further still, if you do not acknowledge the pagan Greek origin of the core Calvinist doctrines you are either ignorant of the facts or are intellectually dishonest or both depending upon whether the ignorance is willful or not. The Calvinist worldview is anything but rational and I believe one of the most destructive doctrines to have ever entered the church. The incoherence of Calvinist and Catholic doctrine (i.e. the pagan Greek doctrines which they both share) causes more people to reject Christianity than perhaps any one other thing. We do not live in the Dark Ages any longer when nearly everyone was illiterate and superstitious and unable to use good thinking skills. People today, especially in our society, are literate and they are well educated and live within a strongly scientific paradigm and are therefore able to see contradiction and understand intuitively what contradiction implies about a truth claim and can use the contradictions inherent in Calvinism as a convenient excuse to reject God, and they do just that in droves. It's much easier to spot the rational inconsistencies of Calvinism and simply reject Christianity outright than to spend the time and energy required to actually read the Bible and learn for one's self what it actually teaches and so people are led astray into eternal damnation for the sake of preserving pagan doctrines that make the religious establishment feel pious and superior because of their willingness to overlook the contradictions inherent in their own teachings in the name of "faith". Thus my hatred of the doctrine is well founded. I hate it for the same reason I hate all falsehood. It is antithetical to God and to everything godly. God Himself lives within me and live His life through me and I am defined by Him by faith and thus anything that it antithetical to God, I hate and does He. I can get along with those who call themselves Calvinist, especially the one's who are mostly ignorant of the doctrines origins and are simply believing what they been taught their whole lives and I can even be civil with those who should know better and yet cling for whatever reason to the pagan belief system. And I certainly believe that the vast majority of people who call themselves Calvinists are saved because most of them have not taken their doctrine to its furthest logical extreme and denied the very gospel itself.
I could say much more but I'm out of time for now. This is probably enough anyway.
Resting in Him,
Clete
themuzicman
Well-known member
I wouldn't call it a denial of the gospel, but a failure to comprehend the bible accurately.
Muz
Muz
You don't know me from Adam AMR!
I reject your theology, I reject your god, I reject your rebuke and I reject any presumed authority you thought you had to make such a ridiculous rebuke in the first place.
You have no idea what it means to "rest in Him", you have not idea who I am or what is going on "in my heart", which the Bible expressly forbids you to be making judgments about it the first place, and you have no authority whatsoever to rebuke me on any grounds anyway!
Who exactly do you think you are? I've tried everything I know to be as cordial and dispassionate with you as it is possible to be and I am constantly met with complaints about how angry I am. Your mind reading skills need some serious work AMR! You're a hypocrite and a fool. You complain about my attitude even to the point of ignoring me for long periods of time and then take every opportunity to do what has to be in your mind the very same thing that I do in response to the disgusting theology put forward by wenches like Nang, who, whether you choose to believe it or not, is here entirely because I called her husband an idiot on another forum (which was the truth by the way) and she just can't let it go. I don't see you rebuking her! I don't see you rebuking anyone but the one guy who has purposed to put your feet to the fire concerning your own claim of having a rational worldview. The only one you seem to have any problem with is the one guy who's arguments you systematically ignore. The only one you rebuke is the one guy who's got your number. You come here claiming to have a rational worldview and then spew one logically fallacy after another (your previous post being no exception) as though you don't even know a fallacy when you see it and the problem you have with me is that I have the time and patience to sit down and point every single one of them out for the whole world to see.
When and if you ever decide to engage the arguments I make in a substantive manner and prove yourself to be intellectually honest man of God that you present yourself as, then and only then I might be persuaded to take rebuke from a Calvinist. Until then keep your personal opinions to yourself because frankly I couldn't care less about what you rebuke.
Resting in Him,
Clete
themuzicman
Well-known member
It's just this kind of thing that indicates that someone knows they've lost.
There's an old addage that goes like this:
If the bible is on your side, pound the bible.
If logic is on your side, pound the logic.
If neither is on your side, pound the table.
AMR is now officially in the last category.
Muz
Of course the longer she stays the more involved with other people she becomes because this is the best theology forum on the net but yes, the only reason she is here at all is because she discovered somehow, probably quite by accident, that I posted here. Had she not found me here she would never have even registered never mind actually posted on this site.
Do you seriously not get the point AMR?
You rebuke me for actions which I could not have kept from doing. You rebuke me for that which God made me do, as does Nang. The point is to point out the inconsistency of your assigning moral culpability to one who could not have done otherwise.
Why do you guys keep saying this crap?
Anyone ever notice that this accusation is never backed up with anything?
.
Calvinists teach that true believers cannot fall away. They therefore conclude that anyone who does fall away was never a true believer in the first place. Beside the fact that this is a unfalsifiable belief and should be rejected on that basis alone, the doctrine almost removes the foundation from under our assurance of salvation and so should be rejected on that basis as well. Calvinists cannot deny that many people who were at one time very devote believers in Jesus Christ and followers of the same, or at the very least they cannot deny that people who have fallen away testify to their prior devotion and the Calvinist only has the fact that they fell away as evidence that they were not. So if a man who is convinced of his salvation can fall away then why can't you? The fact is that you can! The Bible says you can, our experience shows us that people not only can but have fallen away for any number of reasons. Many of whom insist that they were indeed true believers as much as you or anyone could have been. You can jump up and down and insist that they never believed in the first place but saying it doesn't make it so and simply saying it is as close to proving it as you can get.
Proof texting doesn't help AMR. I don't believe one can lose their salvation either but not because of divine election. (The vast majority of the people that the Bible refers to as elect went to Hell.)
Warfield was a legalist and I presume so are you. Our salvation is not made sure by good works but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. II Peter was not written to the Body of Christ but to Kingdom/Circumcision believers (i.e. members of the nation of Israel who believed in Jesus during the previous dispensation and thus were still under the law.) (Gal. 2:7-9).
You cannot find a single person who has fallen away who would not say emphatically that they knew "instinctively what his attitude [was] toward the Scriptures" and that his "conscience [gave] as clear evidence of whether or not [he was] among God's people and that he was "perfectly conscious of the fact" of his salvation and could have proven it with Scripture.
They professed publicly their faith in Christ and their belief that He is God come in the flesh to die for their sins and that God raised Him from the dead on the third day. They profess all the right things and live their lives accordingly and then something tragic happens in their life and because of Calvinist doctrine they blame God for it, and rightly so if Calvinism is correct and end up turning their backs on God and hating Him for having killed their child or their father or burned their house down or a combination thereof or worse.
In short there are countless people who have fallen away that at one time looked exactly like you do. Some of them, no doubt were seminary professors with a whole wall of degrees and hundreds of students. But something came along that God predestined no doubt that caused them to turn a corner and reject God and the point here is that you have no way of knowing that your aren't next on God's predestined hit list.
I wasn't miffed AMR. I hate Nang, okay? She is an enemy of the gospel, an enemy of God and an enemy of mine. I feel no compulsion to be nice to people who are my enemy but that doesn't mean that I am generally an angry sort of guy nor does it mean that I lay awake at night thinking about the people on this website or that I was miffed when I wrote what I wrote. She is an enemy and I responded to her in that context.
Nice! So now our assurance of salvation rest on a warm fuzzy feeling. Give me a break!
Your skill at telling lies is what is striking.
Now I know why I am here.
I'm not amused.
Do you also fully admit that their disservice to Christ's great commission (which does not apply to the Body of Christ in the first place) was predestined by God Himself and that these Calvinist had no choice but to do this disservice?
Every sentence you say argues against your own position.
If this sentence is true, it too is only because God predestined that they be so. Thus those who are great evangelists deserve no more merit for their good works than do the people who performed the disservice deserve punishment for lack of good works.
This comment is disconnected from the rest of your statements in this post and has nothing to do with anything that I or of the others on this thread have said. I have never denied the salvation of the thief on the cross, although I don't think you could establish the fact that he had not previously heard the gospel message. But either way, you evangelize knowing that doing so is meaningless. It's just a puppet show put on by the providence of God. You evangelize because God predestined you to do so just as you wipe your butt three times instead of four because God predestined that you would do so. Neither activity is of any more value than the other.
I was going to go through this one point at a time but I realized that doing so would lend it credit that it does not deserve, especially coming from a man who claims to have a rational worldview and who aught to know better than to make such fallacious arguments.
This is one straw man argument after another with an appeal to consequences fallacy or two thrown in for good measure.
AMR, I tell you the truth; You make more fallacious arguments than any other person I know of who claims to have a rational worldview. You also ignore that point when it is brought up more consistently than anyone I know.
Yet another appeal to consequences fallacy, which is based on a straw man characature of the Open View position.
If your worldview is so rational why do you have to resort to such tactics when debating against the Open View? Why not actually debate the real issues?
Not that I don't know why, I'm just asking for the sake of the others reading this post. I know full well that you will not answer the question.
Nice thinking skills there AMR! You and I know eachother exclusively within the context of debating Calvinism, which is a doctrine I despise with an ineffable passion. I HATE Calvinism and I get really angry when people defame the name of God in order to preserve their pagan beliefs, as I should! When you, for example, tell me that God arbitrarily chooses who to save and who to send to Hell that is precisely the same as calling my Father an unjust bully who does whatever He wants because He can and it doesn't matter whether it makes any sense or whether it is consistent with anything that looks remotely like justice. It's more than insulting and yeah, it pisses me off. Get over it. But just because your theology is personally insulting to both God and myself doesn't mean that I am "an angry and petulant young man" who doesn't know anything about resting in Christ, a concept which I very much doubt that you would be able to articulate given some of the things you've said about living the Christian life.
In short, you've employed YET ANOTHER fallacy of logic known as the hasty generalization fallacy.
:yawn:
Resting in Him,
Clete
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Humble yourself, Clete. Accept the criticisms from me and the many from others you have received in the past. You have no charity of spirit, are divisive, and are not an example of the spirit of gentility and respect expected from a witness of Christ (1 Pe 3:16). Your behavior has put you to shame and I say these things to you, a brother in Christ, for you have strayed into much pridefulness.
Your heart's contents are clear from what comes from your mouth...so says the scriptures. You speak cruelly to others, you are full of unwarranted pridefulness. Anyone even casually reviewing the words you write would form the same conclusions. There is nothing in you outward actions that would demonstrate you have a spirit of humility inwardly. By your own words you show your self.
Clete, no one derserves to be on the receiving end of the kind of language you have been using with Nang. After being indisposed for two days, returning late last night, and seeing your words with Nang I could not remain silent. Your words were spiteful, mocking, and were words that no Godly man should ever use when speaking to a woman.
Early this morning I prayed long for your harsh spirit to be softened, Clete. I prayed for you to be re-cast as a young man of charity and love. I asked God to give you much wisdom beyond your years so that you could be a teacher to others. I asked God to comfort you and to remove whatever it is in your heart that has made you such an angry and bitter young man. Clete, I will continue to offer up daily prayers for you and your family.
Hey, pray for me too. I hope I do not have a harsh spirit, but I want to be a man of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
Clete,
As your brother in the Lord, I commend you for your perseverance, and your powerful and faith witness of the Gospel.
I hope you don't, and I doubt that you will, listen to these two buffoons. AMR is about as pompous, condescending, and disingenuous as they come. Nang is, well Nang, a pain in the....where ever.
The good news is, AMR, as a defender of Calvinism, gives all of us, all the reasons in the world why we should not accept this garbage. Your presentations will certainly convert honest seekers of truth and love.
--Dave
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Godrulz,
Amen . . .
I join you in your response.
We are either filled with God's Spirit of love; precluding hatefulness, or we are bereft of His Holiness and Grace.
Nang
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Ahh your favorite error, the genetic fallacy. You use it so much you don't realize how badly you have constrained your thinking all these years.
No, Clete, you have shamed all Godly men with your treatment of Nang. You have shamed yourself, too, for you were given over to your own pridefulness.
You just don't get it Clete, because you have made God into some being that meets your own expectations of fair play. God made us to be His creatures such that we would give God glory, worship, and love. We were not created for the autonomy you would like to claim, hence, you somehow think that this means free will trumps God's purposes. I rest satisfied that God is working out His purposes through us all.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that open theism got it all wrong. When you meet St. Paul, a Calvinist, in Heaven, will you still be whining about all your need for autonomy? No, you will say, "ghee, I believed I had open theist free will (to do otherwise) all those years and God was not fully knowledgeable of what I was up to, so Calvinism's free will (you choose as you are most inclined) and the fact that a sovereign God was micro-managing me was not so bad."
Yes, that is what my free will feels like, Clete, just like yours. I am aware of no constraints on my choices when I choose. The difference is my free will is biblical and my choices fulfill real purposes by a soverign God, while your free will is liberal humanism that oftentimes thwarts God's purposes. You would prefer to argue with God that you deserve autonomy because it is "fair" because it is "love". I prefer to recognize the Potter's freedom as the only freedom in this universe.
- Status