ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

There is nothing in your contribution to the thread in question that would support your notion that you are "seen" as intellectually honest.

Except that I supported the truth rather than jump on your bandwagon based solely on the fact that you call yourself a Christian.

You have not engaged one bit other than to take a cheap shot at me.

It was not my intention to encourage you. My hope was that the sting of a godless atheist handing you your butt on a platter would serve to snap you out of your delusion of a "rational worldview".

Do you prefer to let our Lord be maligned by a non-believer while sitting idly by, content with yourself?

He wasn't maligning our Lord you idiot, he was maligning your insane doctrine.

If you are so intellectually honest, engage honestly with Duck and I will be the first to rejoice with you should she be moved to repent.

He wouldn't fare nearly as well against me as he has with you. I've engaged him before and in the end, he proves to be no more willing to be swayed by rational arguments than you are but that doesn't mean that he can't be allowed to prove your blasphemies for the irrational nonsense that they are.

Otherwise, you would do well to proceed cautiously for God has placed this person in our path for a reason and He will not be mocked.

You're truly stupid AMR.

For all you know, God "placed this person in our path" expressly for the purpose of showing you to be the fool you are.

Pay close attention to the dialog between mDuck and myself. You will find (and should already observe) that I have no problems engaging as long as the discourse is civil.

Liar. You will eventually do the same with him as you have with everyone else on this forum. You have no choice, there is no where else for you to go but to mindless repetition and obfuscation.

That is my non-negotiable condition. Once the discourse turns personal and vitriloic (as in your puerile style) what is going on is no longer discourse by any definition of the word, and I am under no obligation to subject myself to abuse.

You stop responding to my argument LONG before anything "personal and vitriloic [sic]" ever came from me and you know it.

Moreover, you have observed that when the engagement goes south I am quite able to give as good as I get, too.

Which only proves you to be a hypocrite.

I have seen how it wearies us both. Now we can continue in this manner, you being Philippic and me being mordant, or you can unconditionally accept my terms for civil discourse.

You can stick you terms where the Sun don't shine AMR. I won't waste any more time expecting anything resembling intellectual honesty from you.

No reply is necessary (although I doubt the eristic can forego). Just walk the talk and you will see the fruits of your civility.

I have no desire to be civil to you AMR. In case you haven't yet figured it out, I hate you. You are my enemy. You can stop attempting to be buddies and pretending like you want to have a civil conversation with me. I bent over backward one too many times trying to get you to respond to the arguments and all I get is you trying to impress everyone with your vocabulary and more insults and condescension. At this point I'm no longer interested. You are my enemy and that makes things really simple for me. I will treat you exactly like I treat any other enemy of the Gospel of Grace. I will expose your every lie, I will point out every flaw in your thinking, I will show every obfuscation of the truth until either you leave or repent of your dishonesty.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

Hi Philetus, welcome back! Sorry to delay answer, but I waited for a block of time, to go through your post and give decent reply.

Perhaps we have different concepts of "contingencies."

................................

Agam was commanded to follow God's word (Law). Adam was not given a choice to disobey God's word (Law). However, Adam was created upright and still lived in a state of innocence with the moral ability to obey God's word (Law) and not eat of tree. God did not force Adam to disobey. God's foreknowledge of what Adam would do, was not the cause of what Adam did.

Adam did not so much "choose freely" to go against God's word, as he failed to remain in innocent subjection to his Maker. Adam had the ability to continue in submissive fellowship with God, but threw it away due to his unbelief of God's word, and refusal to subject himself to creaturely limitations. He rebelliously attempted to breach his limitations, to become "like God." He believed the lie from the serpent, that the finite could be infinite "like God."

Adam attempted to usurp the will and word (Law) of God via his moral agency (will).




Only Adam was able to exercise his will to serve God. But after the fall, he was no longer able, for God cursed him, separated from him, banned him from the garden and the tree of life, and left him enslaved to serving the devil, while inescapable consigned to death. And ALL of Adam's descendents are born into this same condition. All men are conceived in sin, and born sinners, unable to exercise their moral agency to serve Godly good. The wills of all men are in bondage to Satan, until and unless they are released from that bondage by the grace of God.





There is no choice to transfer oneself from death to life. None. Dead men cannot choose to climb out of their graves.

That does not mean that the Calvinist denies the human will. Born again (regenerated) Christians are given new hearts, which creates new minds, which produces new wills, that evidence faith, repentance, and the good works of God. The will of the Christian is the product of the "mind of Christ" that dwells within through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit.

Christians are given a new love of God's word (Law), and they are enabled, according to their new nature, to volitionally obey God. They willingly serve God and His righteousness. They exercise their moral agency in new submission to God; as their Lord gave them example while in His earthly visitation, by totally submitting His human moral agency to God above.


Jesus Christ exemplified how the human will is to function . . .in complete submission to the sovereign will of God.

There is no greater freedom than having renewed fellowship with the God the Savior, and the desire to serve His righteousness!

Nang

It isn't that we have different concepts of contingencies; there simply can be NO contingencies in your view. Any capitulation to contingencies on your part weakens your position. And I must say, you have done an exceptional job in stating your position. Other Calvinists would do well to follow your example. I tried to cut it down just for the sake of size, but found it hard to do. I really do appreciate your effort. (I find it interesting that the verses quoted are ones I'm quite familiar with but my reading of them is of course different. We could have a debate over any of them, but I don't think that would get us far.)


Is choosing between a blue suit and a black suit a moral choice?



You have said that Adam had NO choice ... God didn't FORCE Adam ... Adam had the ability to ... but Adam failed to ... he rebelliously attempted ... but [Adam] threw it away due to his unbelief and refusal ...

Where did Adam get this unbelief and refusal and the (supposed) ability to rebel?

How could Adam who had no choice in anything ... breach his limitations? Did Adam have a choice whether he would believe God or believed the lie from the serpent? And hadn't Eve already bought into the lie? I think she should get more credit than she does.

Ge 3:22 - And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."​

What purpose does the knowledge of good and evil have if man cannot make a choice between the two? What possible difference could it make that man be NOT ALLOWED to ALSO live forever without submission to God's will? What possible risk could there be if Adam was, as you say, 'dead'. I see in this that man simply cannot be allowed to save Himself (which is what he has been trying to do ever since) but neither is man totally excluded from the process of being saved. It does indeed take an act of God ... 100% pure grace ... and the work of Holy Spirit to respond to God's offer of salvation in Christ Jesus. I also requires the exercise of OUR faith.

Dead men cannot choose to climb out of their graves.

I haven't heard that one in quite some time. And it is a great line if you are a Calvinist and hold to total depravity. But, it is the stupidest thing ever if God actually exercises patience with 'dead' men. Can DEAD MEN reach out their hand and take also from the tree of life? What was the threat?

And as a Calvinist, I say it is necessary that God's ultimate purposes be fulfilled; and they will be despite the corrupted cause and effects sinful men reap in their worldly lives through serving sin, death, and the devil.

I agree it is not only necessary but inevitable that God will sovereignly accomplish His ultimate will and purposes! I just don't see how our choosing between a blue suit and a black suit makes any real difference in God attaining His ultimate goal. I also believe God gives us all that we need (grace) to decide between submission or rebellion; life and death.


Thanks Nang, I'm trying to keep it shorter. :help:
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

He wasn't maligning our Lord you idiot, he was maligning your insane doctrine.

:thumb: :doh:
People are rejecting Calvin and turning to Jesus once they see the difference and the offer God makes through His Son. People actually know they have a choice and want to make it. God's offer through grace honors His image (however marred) in them. Calvinism only denies them this God given, Christ earned, and Spirit led life!

The only argument Open Theism gets is from those who don't know the difference.

 

[Clete]

I've been on TOL for four years, and can't say I recall a single TOL OVer ever admit they were wrong about a facet of OV Theology. Why should we be expected to waiver in our theology and you guys not? Personally, I feel the reason why most OVers expect us to waiver and not themselves is due to arrogance. From what I have witnessed and read of OVers, the theology pure and simply breeds it.

No one is suggesting that anyone waver in their theology for the sake of wavering. It's not a negotiation where I give in on this point and you reciprocate by giving in on some other point and we meet somewhere in the middle. That isn't the way the truth works. If we expect you to waver at all it would be in response to the strength of the arguments. That's how I became an Open Theist and it is precisely the same way I expect anyone else to become one as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

No one is suggesting that anyone waver in their theology for the sake of wavering. It's not a negotiation where I give in on this point and you reciprocate by giving in on some other point and we meet somewhere in the middle. That isn't the way the truth works. If we expect you to waver at all it would be in response to the strength of the arguments. That's how I became an Open Theist and it is precisely the same way I expect anyone else to become one as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete

clete, Do you believe that every person has the right to act in accordance with who they are and not who they are not? That is the free will I believe in.

The problem we are having is not one of free will but in defining what and who we are. If we believe that we are subject to the flesh and its fallen nature after we have been saved we will act in accordance with that belief and we wind up defeated Christians, If we believe we have become a new creation in Christ then we will act in accordance with that belief and exhibit the qualities of the life within.

My main objection is that Christianity today teaches that we remain subject to the flesh and act in accordance with its deadness that is passed instead of life that we have now received.

Where is our liberty in life if we remain subject to the deadness of of our former self? If we act in the liberty of life the flesh will indeed sin because it is inevitable that we will offend theses weak ones for whom Christ died. We are then what is called a carnal Christian who is one who is double minded and unstable in our ways. We cannot have life and still be subject death.

 

[Stripe]

clete, Do you believe that every person has the right to act in accordance with who they are and not who they are not? That is the free will I believe in.

The problem we are having is not one of free will but in defining what and who we are. If we believe that we are subject to the flesh and its fallen nature after we have been saved we will act in accordance with that belief and we wind up defeated Christians, If we believe we have become a new creation in Christ then we will act in accordance with that belief and exhibit the qualities of the life within.

My main objection is that Christianity today teaches that we remain subject to the flesh and act in accordance with its deadness that is passed instead of life that we have now received.

Where is our liberty in life if we remain subject to the deadness of of our former self? If we act in the liberty of life the flesh will indeed sin because it is inevitable that we will offend theses weak ones for whom Christ died. We are then what is called a carnal Christian who is one who is double minded and unstable in our ways. We cannot have life and still be subject death.

I believe you're off topic.

 

[elected4ever]

I believe you're off topic.

Not at all. It is the most basic principle of Christianity. Suppose you tell me how you have liberty without freedom? How can one have free will to choose if liberty does not exist? If one wants to maintain the liberty to sin, then how can that person be in Christ? God never gave the right to sin to anyone. If you sin you are dead because the wages of sin is death. Are you dead or alive?

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

I have no desire to be civil to you AMR. In case you haven't yet figured it out, I hate you. You are my enemy. You can stop attempting to be buddies and pretending like you want to have a civil conversation with me. I bent over backward one too many times trying to get you to respond to the arguments and all I get is you trying to impress everyone with your vocabulary and more insults and condescension. At this point I'm no longer interested. You are my enemy and that makes things really simple for me. I will treat you exactly like I treat any other enemy of the Gospel of Grace. I will expose your every lie, I will point out every flaw in your thinking, I will show every obfuscation of the truth until either you leave or repent of your dishonesty.

To be frank, this post is ridiculous. Your vitrolic and biting comments are unbelievable. It is posts like this that make me wonder if certain individuals believe in a God who is love, and aptly demonstrate the dangers of of runaway Protestatism and poor definitions of the gospel. I might be wrong, but isn't is somewhere in the Bible to love your enemy? Clete, I beg of you, please try to engage in these conversations in a more civil and loving manner. AMR, I ask the same of you. These debates should hopefully promote love, unity, and mutual edification of the body: not inane mudslinging.

 

[Stripe]

Not at all. It is the most basic principle of Christianity. Suppose you tell me how you have liberty without freedom? How can one have free will to choose if liberty does not exist? If one wants to maintain the liberty to sin, then how can that person be in Christ? God never gave the right to sin to anyone. If you sin you are dead because the wages of sin is death. Are you dead or alive?

Dead.

 

[Stripe]

To be frank, this post is ridiculous. Your vitrolic and biting comments are unbelievable. It is posts like this that make me wonder if certain individuals believe in a God who is love, and aptly demonstrate the dangers of of runaway Protestatism and poor definitions of the gospel. I might be wrong, but isn't is somewhere in the Bible to love your enemy? Clete, I beg of you, please try to engage in these conversations in a more civil and loving manner. AMR, I ask the same of you. These debates should hopefully promote love, unity, and mutual edification of the body: not inane mudslinging.

:baby:

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

:baby:

Stipe, let me know what you think in words. The illocution of your little baby animation is lost upon me. Really, friedly sarcasm aside, please do.

 

[godrulz]

Not at all. It is the most basic principle of Christianity. Suppose you tell me how you have liberty without freedom? How can one have free will to choose if liberty does not exist? If one wants to maintain the liberty to sin, then how can that person be in Christ? God never gave the right to sin to anyone. If you sin you are dead because the wages of sin is death. Are you dead or alive?

You waste your breath with sinless perfectionism heresies. THE most basic issue is the Deity of Christ that you reject. You waste your time on peripheral issues while ignoring an essential, salvific truth.

 

[Stripe]

You're crying over Clete putting AMR in his place. Surely you consider the elected one's opponent to be a vastly superior person in all aspects and perfectly capable of handling himself in the face of such an ungodly assault.

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

You're crying over Clete putting AMR in his place. Surely you consider the elected one's opponent to be a vastly superior person in all aspects and perfectly capable of handling himself in the face of such an ungodly assault.

Not exactly. I was decrying the spittle flying rhetoric of both parties. Although I was amazed that Clete managed to call AMR an "enemy of the gospel", when (correct me if I'm wrong) concepts regarding God's foreknowledge are not part of the declaration of Christ as Lord and Savior. I would unquestionably state that the Open Theist/Calvinist/Arminian debate all occurs within the bounds of orthodoxy (let us loosely define it as doctrines with "salvific" significance). While each side might not like certain facets of each others doctrines: no gospel issues are on the table here. It is with keeping this in mind, that I am attempting to exhort that this thread is conducted in a manner worthy of the Lord and gospel that we profess and done in a context of loving discussion and edification.

 

[godrulz]

Where did Clete say he was an enemy of the gospel? I do not think Clete considers AMR a godless unbeliever. If he did, Clete would be wrong and deserves rebuke. Issues of foreknowledge are not salvific like the Deity/resurrection of Christ and justification by faith (which both affirm).

 

[VanhoozerRocks]

At this point I'm no longer interested. You are my enemy and that makes things really simple for me. I will treat you exactly like I treat any other enemy of the Gospel of Grace.

This is the enemy of the gospel of grace part. My phraseology could use some work though. Clete states that he will treat AMR like an enemy of the gospel of grace: which from this statement I infered that he views AMR as such. However, I could definetly be wrong in drawing such a conclusion, and I would be grateful if Clete stated I was wrong.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have no desire to be civil to you AMR. In case you haven't yet figured it out, I hate you. You are my enemy. You can stop attempting to be buddies and pretending like you want to have a civil conversation with me. I bent over backward one too many times trying to get you to respond to the arguments and all I get is you trying to impress everyone with your vocabulary and more insults and condescension. At this point I'm no longer interested. You are my enemy and that makes things really simple for me. I will treat you exactly like I treat any other enemy of the Gospel of Grace. I will expose your every lie, I will point out every flaw in your thinking, I will show every obfuscation of the truth until either you leave or repent of your dishonesty.

You, like your master, hate all truth that is God's Truth. You vomit lies to serve him who would corrupt us all, for you are so full of arrogant stagnation that you would pop like a toad before doing otherwise. The poison of your tongue is evidence of the evil in your heart. You are a devil come to encourage the evil in men's hearts.

 

[Lighthouse]

Have you ever seen a Calvanist admit error?

I have. I saw Hilston do it once.

 

[Philetus]

:bang::box: linger: :blabla: :bow: :nananana: :beanboy: :straight:
Fight nice boys.
:bang:

 

[Lighthouse]

TOL changed me from believing in a timeless, all-knowing, antinomy loving, non-calvinist into a proponent of the OV without me even realising it.

Some of the things I said about God before I came to TOL were, at best, absurd.

:thumb: