ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[VanhoozerRocks]

Jumping in here I would state (as Knight is seemingly implying) that God's foreknowledge is not a "salvific" doctrine: this being that it is definetly not a facet of the gospel. It seems kind of ridiculous to make a claim to the contrary.

 

[Clete]

Then you have made my case that your sole motivation is only to bolster your own ego. Well said, Clete! You are a cockalorum!

So I take it then that this is all the substance you could muster in response to my post. Typical Calvinist. :nono:

It has nothing to do with my ego, you moron. I has to do with the fact that I am here to disprove Calvinism whenever I can and discredit Calvinists in whatever meaningful way I can whenever meaningful discourse on the issues themselves has either proved fruitless or impossible. And unlike most people, I actually do things that are consistent with attempting to accomplish my stated goals, including baiting you or any other Calvinist into demonstrating that they don't know God or the Bible from a hole in the ground.

In short, I'm not here to make friends with people whom I believe to be heretics. I don't care if you like me, I don't care if you disagree with me (really I don't care). I would prefer that you engage me on the merits of the issues but you've never had any intention of doing that and so that's fine with me. In fact, so much the better really because I can routinely cause you to defeat your own position with your own posts. It's not as much fun and far less educational for everyone involved but one take their victories where and when you can get them.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

Clete,
In light of your post, got a quick question. Do you believe Calvinists to be heretics?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jumping in here I would state (as Knight is seemingly implying) that God's foreknowledge is not a "salvific" doctrine: this being that it is definetly not a facet of the gospel. It seems kind of ridiculous to make a claim to the contrary.

I have been told several times by Calvinists that I am not saved because I am not a Calvinist. (here is one such example).

Yet, I do not do likewise.

As long as a person has given themselves to Christ, accepted God's work on the cross he is saved! Even if his theology is unorthodox (whatever that might mean) he is saved!

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

I have been told several times by Calvinists that I am not saved because I am not a Calvinist. (here is one such example).

Yet, I do not do likewise.

As long as a person has given themselves to Christ, accepted God's work on the cross he is saved! Even if his theology is unorthodox (whatever that might mean) he is saved!

Good man. I would completely concur. However, if someone does make such a terrible claim upon a brother, I might be tempted to use the language of "hyper-Calvinist" to designate their theologumenon. That is part of the trilogy that distinguishes hyper-Calvinism from what one might designate as traditional Calvinism (in a very loose sense). If your wondering, the other two if I remember correctly are hard determinism and denial of carrying out the Church's missio. A true fulfillment of the term "frozen chosen".

 

[Nang]

I has to do with the fact that I am here to disprove Calvinism

So, disprove Calvinism, then. Don't just talk about it.

Take our doctrines point by point, and disprove them.

You can start by answering my polite request that you provide an example from the WCF that proves to be "not from the Bible but Greek."*


*quoting Clete.

 

[Clete]

Originally Posted by stipe
Why do you trust God?
Why? Your very existence in this forum is predicated on asking the same sort of bait-and-switch questions. Glad to see I am not the only one who recognizes the immature snare tactics of many folks here.

Notice though that I actually answered his obviously leading question with a straight forward and direct answer. Someone asks you a leading question and you just shut down, no matter how strenuously someone insists that they are not trying to trap you! Even when you do finally answer the question and there is no trap sprung you still insist that it was some sort of trap! You're the most paranoid and defensive, thin skinned ninny I've ever met! If you're so sure you're right, why not just answer the questions posed to you and engage the debate? No one is going to object to your voicing trepidation about a potential trap as long as you don't wimp out and refuse to answer at all. That's the beautiful thing about knowing the real truth; traps don't really worry you all that much. Sure it sucks when you get caught with your fly open, but when your position is true, you can always recover from such things and demonstrate not only how the trap was set but why it isn't a valid argument. And what's more, by allowing the trap to be sprung, you learn the tactics of your theological "enemy" (for want of a better term). There just isn't any reason to be so scared of some trap that you just shut down and refuse to answer a straight forward question.

Leading questions, by the way, are not always traps. Leading question are commonly necessary in the formative stages of a theological discussion. One might take the initiative and simply state a position but not always. In many cases someone might ask a few leading questions to bring out what at least appears to be a contradiction in someone's theology. The conversation can then proceed from there and the contradiction can either be confirmed or shown to be only superficial. With you, however, no conversation will ever get that far and even if it did, you wouldn't allow it to get any further because at that point you would simply begin to repeat yourself over and over again, ignoring any argument that attempted to falsify your position on a the basis that it either contradicted itself or the plain reading of Scripture. You would repeat yourself until your opponent got so frustrated that he handed you an excuse to blow him off as juvenile or uneducated or some other something - anything it took to prevent having to actually respond to the real arguments presented. One really begins to wonder why you bothered to show up here in the first place.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you believe that all of your theology is orthodox?

How do you define orthodox?

Also... have a great weekend! I will be out of town so I hope you and your family have a blessed weekend.

Orthodoxy:
"The word orthodox expresses the idea that certain statements accurately embody the revealed truth content of Christianity and are therefore in their own nature normative for the universal church. The idea is rooted in the NT insistence that the gospel has a specific factual and theological content (1 Cor. 15:1-11; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4), and that no fellowship exists between those who accept the apostolic standard of christological teaching and those who deny it (1 John 4:1-2; 2 John 7-11)." [emphasis added--AMR]

Some key points from the entries in the encyclopedia cited below:

God:
atemporal
omniscient - exhaustively
omnipotent - exhaustive control
transcendent

Christology:
fully God, fully man; human side material cause of salvation

Hell:
eternal torment for the damned, not annihilation

source: Baker Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, pp. 492-499, c. 2001


Thus, yes, I am orthodox.


Enjoy your traveling with the family and may God keep you safe.

 

[Nang]

Even if his theology is unorthodox (whatever that might mean) he is saved!

Here is one man's definition of "orthodoxy" that I agree with:

"All true religion represents the Supreme Being as ethically strict and holy, and all false religion as ethically easy and indulgent. The revelation which God made to Moses (Romans 11:22), when he established the Jewish church, announced both His 'goodness' and His 'severity' in combination . . .the two explain each other, and one is unintelligible without the other. The mercy of God is a cheap and unmeaning thing for the self-indulgent man who 'thinks his Maker to be altogether such an one as himself.'" Excerpted from "Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy", by William G.T. Shedd

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Orthodoxy:
The word orthodox expresses the idea that certain statements accurately embody the revealed truth content of Christianity and are therefore in their own nature normative for the universal church.

Therefore you must agree that orthodoxy has a level of subjectiveness to it correct?

It's sort of like the word "heresy". If somebody calls me a heretic, (for whatever reason) they might be right and they might be wrong. Proving I am a heretic or demonstrating that I am a heretic is no different than proving I am right or proving that I am wrong.

Heresy, orthodoxy, accuracy, right, and wrongness, in and of themselves need to be demonstrated.

Therefore making the claim... "The fact that open theism is not orthodox" is no more powerful than saying "open theism is wrong".

Many things that are considered "orthodox" are grossly in error! And some things that are considered heresy by certain folks are things that you and I would staunchly defend as biblical!

Anyway... have a great weekend. :up:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Here is one man's definition of "orthodoxy" that I agree with:

"All true religion represents the Supreme Being as ethically strict and holy, and all false religion as ethically easy and indulgent. The revelation which God made to Moses (Romans 11:22), when he established the Jewish church, announced both His 'goodness' and His 'severity' in combination . . .the two explain each other, and one is unintelligible without the other. The mercy of God is a cheap and unmeaning thing for the self-indulgent man who 'thinks his Maker to be altogether such an one as himself.'" Excerpted from "Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy", by William G.T. Shedd

Interesting.

It doesn't really read like a definition to me.

Yet it is interesting.

Have a blessed weekend. :up:

 

[Clete]

So, disprove Calvinism, then. Don't just talk about it.

Take our doctrines point by point, and disprove them.

You can start by answering my polite request that you provide an example from the WCF that proves to be "not from the Bible but Greek."*


*quoting Clete.

I have already many times both in this thread and elsewhere. This thread is supposed to be about Open Theism not Calvinism per se which is why I recently started the thread concerning impassibility, a doctrine which the WCF directly endorses and which you dismally failed to support either rationally or Biblically. The only defense you could offer, as it is the only defense available, is that given by Aristotle and Plato but you didn't even do that, you simply kept on repeating the doctrine hoping that I wouldn't notice that you hadn't bothered to attempt to establish it at all.

The impassibility of God is utterly unbiblical. There isn't a single syllable uttered concerning the subject in all of Scripture and it is a core doctrine of the Calvinist faith. If God is not impassible, He is not immutable (in the Calvinist sense of the term) and if God is not utterly immutable, Calvinism completely falls apart as it has no foundation.

If you would like for me to make some specific argument concerning some specific doctrine, start a thread and I'll be happy to engage you on that specific topic. In the mean time, perhaps you know of an actual argument that might have something to do with Open Theism that we could discuss here in this thread. If so, I invite you to present it and I will promise to respond directly to it on its merits.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It has nothing to do with my ego, you moron. I has to do with the fact that I am here to disprove Calvinism whenever I can and discredit Calvinists in whatever meaningful way I can whenever meaningful discourse on the issues themselves has either proved fruitless or impossible. And unlike most people, I actually do things that are consistent with attempting to accomplish my stated goals, including baiting you or any other Calvinist into demonstrating that they don't know God or the Bible from a hole in the ground.

In short, I'm not here to make friends with people whom I believe to be heretics. I don't care if you like me, I don't care if you disagree with me (really I don't care). I would prefer that you engage me on the merits of the issues but you've never had any intention of doing that and so that's fine with me. In fact, so much the better really because I can routinely cause you to defeat your own position with your own posts. It's not as much fun and far less educational for everyone involved but one take their victories where and when you can get them. (boldface added --AMR)

Revealing. A perfect archetype for the vain and vapid.

Now, let's see. If I replaced "Calvinism/Calvinist" with "open theism/open theist" above and made the exact same post, I bet Delmar would come rushing to the rescue of poor Clete (sniff) with the banned bit flipped.

Oh, one more thing, Clete: heresy is a departure from orthodoxy. Open theism is non-orthodox by any accepted definition among Protestant churches. Oh sure, the prideful Clete will claim that open theism is the only orthodox view. (sigh) No matter, for that would mean when you call me a heretic (and you know that is what you are doing above), it is the equivalent of saying I am in fact orthodox. Think about it and you might just get it. After all, I am using logic now.

 

[Clete]

Clete,
In light of your post, got a quick question. Do you believe Calvinists to be heretics?

That depends on a lot of things. Calvinism is definitely heretical but Calvinists may not be. Most people who call themselves Calvinists have no idea at all where their doctrine comes from. They believe what they are taught and that's that. This includes many, if not most, Calvinist pastors, by the way. Sure, they've been to seminary and have been taught all sorts of things about why they believe what they believe but the fact is that they are still little more than cattle being led by the nose into the same error that they predecessors are teaching them.

One of the main problems is that of the church "establishment" for want of a better term. People who want to be in the ministry are pretty much forced to accept the "party line", if you will, or else they stand no chance of keeping a job in any church if they can get one at all. Pastors and other clergy are perhaps the most pitiful of all really because they've spent so much time, energy and money on learning their particular flavor of Christianity that it is simply too much to expect any of them to reject everything they've been taught since they were young children. They are literally entrenched into their doctrine and couldn't get out even if they wanted too. The cost is simply too high for most to be willing to pay. People in such positions are almost certainly saved Christian people who are simply doing the best they can, mostly oblivious to the rational and Biblical difficulties that a close look at their theology would present. I suspect, and will simply presume until proven wrong, that both Nang and AMR are in this category, although it might be wiser to give them the benefit of the doubt and presume otherwise.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Notice though that I actually answered his obviously leading question with a straight forward and direct answer. Someone asks you a leading question and you just shut down, no matter how strenuously someone insists that they are not trying to trap you!

Clete, go back to the link I used. It was one of my first few posts with you. I hope others look as well. I did answer your questions because I gave you the benefit of the doubt until you revealed your true colors. I even persisted, against my better judgment afterwards. The thread is there for anyone to read and view Clete's style and pridefulness.

Leading questions, by the way, are not always traps. Leading question are commonly necessary in the formative stages of a theological discussion. One might take the initiative and simply state a position but not always. In many cases someone might ask a few leading questions to bring out what at least appears to be a contradiction in someone's theology.

Stop back-pedaling to appear sincere in seeking to learn from your endeavors. You know full well, and have stated it here in this thread and elsewhere your only motivation is "victory". If only the victories you claimed were substantiated, you might have the rationist's reason for boasting. You are a legend in your own mind, Clete. Kind of a sad and lonely place to be.

 

[Clete]

Revealing. A perfect archetype for the vain and vapid.

Oh, one more thing, Clete: heresy is a departure from orthodoxy. Open theism is non-orthodox by any accepted definition among Protestant churches. Oh sure, the prideful Clete will claim that open theism is the only orthodox view. (sigh) No matter, for that would mean when you call me a heretic (and you know that is what you are doing above), it is the equivalent of saying I am in fact orthodox. Think about it and you might just get it. After all, I am using logic now.

I call you a moron when you say moronic things AMR! Haven't you notice the pattern?

Take for example...

"heresy is a departure from orthodoxy."

MORONIC!

"Heresy" has a whole range of meaning including, but not limited too "denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church" - source

So I suppose were both heretics huh! Idiot!

Now, let's see. If I replaced "Calvinism/Calvinist" with "open theism/open theist" above and made the exact same post, I bet Delmar would come rushing to the rescue of poor Clete (sniff) with the banned bit flipped.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about here. Delmar has the authority to ban people now? Cool! I really did not know that until just now. One thing I have been aware of for some time though is that mocking the banning privileges of the moderators is a really good way to get yourself banned.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Clete, go back to the link I used. It was one of my first few posts with you. I hope others look as well. I did answer your questions because I gave you the benefit of the doubt until you revealed your true colors. I even persisted, against my better judgment afterwards. The thread is there for anyone to read and view Clete's style and pridefulness.

There is no working link in that post.

Stop back-pedaling to appear sincere in seeking to learn from your endeavors. You know full well, and have stated it here in this thread and elsewhere your only motivation is "victory".

I never said that was my only motivation. It is however, my primary motivation and I have never suggested otherwise. I'm perfectly happy to learn things though! Especially things which assist me in destroying the position of those who turn God into an unjust bully.

In effect, my goals here are consistent with the purpose this website exists.

If only the victories you claimed were substantiated, you might have the rationist's reason for boasting. You are a legend in your own mind, Clete. Kind of a sad and lonely place to be.

If this were so, you would (or at the very least could) show that I am wrong. As it is, all you do is repeat yourself and ignore sound arguments against your theology as you just did here. Very impressive AMR. :yawn:


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have already many times both in this thread and elsewhere. This thread is supposed to be about Open Theism not Calvinism per se which is why I recently started the thread concerning impassibility

Oh, please, you played the Calvinism card in your third post on that thread. And no one even raised it contextually. You just cannot help yourself. You are driven instinctually and your own worst enemy. So then it was the same old Clete all over again. Like a broken record.

I would like to meet the Calvinist that was so mean to you that you harbor such psychological issues against. I think I would have to rebuke that person.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Therefore you must agree that orthodoxy has a level of subjectiveness to it correct?

In one sense it is. In another it is about the community of believers, Christ's church, coming together, with the Spirit being present, and agreeing upon what is foundational in their beliefs, writing it down, and practicing it accordingly. Which is why I maintain that one cannot go off half cocked and dismiss what the larger body of Christ has found to be orthodox. I would not make such a stink about this if some of the more vocal here would preface their discussions with a nod to the fact that what they are advocating is recognized as not orthodox--versus the assumption of entitlement to orthodoxy from the opening discussion. That behavior is simply careless and haughty.

 

[Clete]

I have read them and that is why I am able to make the assertion. If you follow the link here you will also see that I walk PK through the rationale that these authors have used in their writings.

Can we stop with the one line posts! It's impossible to keep up with them all!

I would like to read and respond to that post but will only do so if you can honestly tell me that you wrote more than half of it yourself in your own words and that it isn't just one gigantic copy/paste job from someone else's work.