ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lighthouse]

Second point: Who am I debating with? What kind of man are you?
From what center do you say such things as this? That these are "ramblings?" That I'm a "moron," "stupid," "ignorant?"

Col 3:8 But now, put off all these things: anger, rage, malice, slander, abusive language from your mouth.

Psa 15:3 He does not slander,
or do harm to others,
or insult his neighbor.

1Ti 3:2 Then it behooves the overseer to be without reproach, husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, well-ordered, hospitable, apt at teaching,
1Ti 3:3 not a drunkard, not contentious, not greedy of ill gain, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous,

2Ti 2:24 But the servant of the Lord must not strive, but to be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 in meekness instructing those who oppose, if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth,
2Ti 2:26 and that they awake out of the snare of the Devil, having been taken captive by him, so as to do the will of that one.

Jam 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first truly pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.

Tit 3:2 They must not slander anyone, but be peaceable, gentle, showing complete courtesy to all people.
Tit 3:3 For we too were once foolish, disobedient, misled, enslaved to various passions and desires, spending our lives in evil and envy, hateful and hating one another.

Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
Eph 4:31 You must put away every kind of bitterness, anger, wrath, quarreling, and evil, slanderous talk.
Eph 4:32 Instead, be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you.

Col 3:12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience,
Col 3:13 bear with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also forgive others.
Col 3:14 And to all these virtues add love, which is the perfect bond.
Col 3:15 Let the peace of Christ be in control in your heart (for you were in fact called as one body to this peace), and be thankful.

1Pe 2:1 So get rid of all evil and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.
1Pe 2:2 And yearn like newborn infants for pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up to salvation,
1Pe 2:3 if you have experienced the Lord's kindness.

*Not just you. I even have seen the leadership here encourage another after posting slanderous vitriol. A student is not above his teacher. What kind of person is TOL producing? This is a call to own your own walk with Christ and follow His leading appropriately in sincerity, even against the teacher/pastor.

What part of, "I don't read Lon's posts," did you not understand?

 

[Lon]

Yikes. The TOL brats are culpable for their own behavior. Calvinists can also be big jerks. The issue is immaturity, character, etc. There is nothing in major belief systems that would account for bad attitudes, behavior, etc. This is a fleshly issue, not a doctrinal issue. I would say OT and Calvinists can be equally arrogant convinced they are right and others are wrong. There is nothing inherent in the traditional view that makes character more likely.

John Sanders and others have endured ridicule, censure, misrepresentation, etc. and remain gracious and much more conciliatory than many of the misguided Calvinistic attacks/attackers.

It is a non sequitur to think Open Theism explains some extremes found here. It is also not the responsibility of prominent OT's to visit and police here (many probably are not aware, could care less, would not condone beliefs and behavior, etc.). The local church and its leadership is a discipline setting, not the wild west of internet forums that lack face-to-face accountability.

We are disciples of Jesus, not Calvin, Sanders, Pinnock, Enyart, etc. (oh, that is DOCTOR, not Mr. in many cases).

I hope I can at least model civil dialogue since we are in the same family, unlike Mormons, JWs, atheists, etc. I do admit that I have more in common with free will theisms (Arminianism, etc.) than deterministic views that impugn the character and ways of God (something that does evoke emotional responses from us).

Don't overtly apologize GR. I agree that there are immature in all representatives, but not from the leadership on down. I will not mention the names but in OV 1 a TOL poster was vitriolic. While the leader in question does not trade tit for tat, he does spurn his own on regardless of the horrible nature of the mean-spirited post. This is EXACTLY backwards. If it were me, I'd have sent my member an E-mail and ask that he refrain from banter and debate until he learned to do it in a Christ-honoring fashion. I'm saying that it is encouraged in a top-down dynamic: "Smack of Truth" "Open Rebuke."

My call is to all believers, not just TOL-brand and points as much to myself as any other.

 

[Lon]

What part of, "I don't read Lon's posts," did you not understand?

What part of "Psa 15:3 He does not slander" (click it and read it) didn't you?

Your turn, try again?

You might as well have said "I don't follow those particular scriptures" since that's all they were.

 

[Clete]

Mr. Boyd, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Pinnock, Mr. Enyart, Mr. Hill,

Are you watching? Are you aware?

What kind of disciple are you producing? Is it the kind you always imagined?

You are a hypocrite and wouldn't know God from your butt.
You don't understand sound reasoning and I'd almost bet my house that you've never bothered to actually read the Bible for yourself.
You make me sick!

How is it that in salvaging a relational God you've spawned such un-relational, vitriolic, mean-spirited, and antithetic Christian disciples?

You don't even know what being a Christian is! You believe that God predestined me to be exactly the way I am, you astonishingly stupid fool! Why are you worried about what Enyart thinks? God predestined that too, right?!

And it is relational. I hate the enemies of God, including those who happen to call themselves Christians. (Freelight doesn't even call himself a Christian, but you do.) That makes you the hypocrite and the larger, more dangerous enemy.

It is an indictment and atrocity.

So says the idiot, Lon! Lon, the moron who cannot think.

Sadly, it is nothing like I'd imagine from "an attempt at a more biblical theology."

Your mind no longer works. Who gives a rip about what you imagine?

I should have known when there was no prayer forum.

That's true! Perhaps you should reconsider your participation is such a vile and morally revolting website. :idea:

I should have known when there was no graciousness.

You're right again. Perhaps you should just leave now.

I should have known when the tag-lines have always been 'smack of truth' or 'open rebuke.'

Indeed! Your god of niceness didn't really predestine all this, did he? You really should just go before we corrupt you.

"Open rebuke is better than love concealed" comes in couplet:

Pro 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
but the kisses of an enemy are excessive

AMEN!

The best friend a man could have is an enemy that turns him from his evil ways.

Pro 27:9 Ointment and incense make the heart rejoice,
likewise the sweetness of one's friend from sincere counsel.

Amen again! The best friend I have in this world became my friend because I bothered to confront him about his false theology and didn't give up until he saw it and repented.

Open rebuke in context is from a friend!

Wow! You really are incapable of understanding such things, aren't you? :nono:

Pro 18:23 A poor person makes supplications,
but a rich man answers harshly.
Pro 18:24 A person who has friends may be harmed by them,
but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

1Pe 3:8 And finally, all be of one mind, having compassion on one another, loving the brothers, tenderhearted, friendly.
1Pe 4:8 Above all keep your love for one another fervent, because love covers a multitude of sins.
1Pe 4:9 Show hospitality to one another without complaining.

First of all Freelight isn't even a Christian you idiot (and neither are you as far as I can tell). He doesn't have the slightest idea who God is! You think that God predestined people to rape 6 year old boys! That means you don't know who God is either! YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GOD, LON!!!! You're lost in a fog of over education and mindless allegiance to a false theology that makes no sense whatsoever. Freelight is obviously lost and doesn't care. You are in worse condition because you think you know something when you don't! You think there's something wrong with enemies treating each other like enemies! That not only cracks me up but its tragic at the same time! That makes you stupid, Lon! You're stupid, plain and simple. You are intelligent and articulate but you articulate stupidity! You speak about things you know nothing about while believing yourself to be an expert. You are to be pitied while at the same time hated.

The traditional view preserves godly character, at the least.

You are so unbelievable hypocritical.

Not to mention contradictory.

Even if we of traditional persuasion were possibly wrong on some point or another, how could one reject that and be affiliated with a theology that refuses to address godliness?

See what I mean?

You don't have the slightest idea what the heck you're talking about.

Here's a revelation for you...

Hating the enemies of God is a good thing, Lon!

Refuses to correct their own? Refuses to set a high-bar for godly behavior? How can one applaud a doctrinal point and neglect the spirit and harsh worldliness of the poster?

Ever considered the notion that you've been lied too about what constitutes Godly behavior? There was a time when believing the blasphemous things you believe about God would have cost you your head.

Dear sirs, if your theology produces such as these, repent! Test the fruit. Re-examine. Re-align. Better to lose face than to be guilty of milestones.

You're are so stupid. Your every phrase proves your theology false and hypocritical.

Repentance is only possible if Open Theism is true.

When someone shows up who wants to intelligently discuss Open Theism and say things that are intelligent and substantively responsive, who wants to debate what Open Theists ACTUALLY believe and asks honest questions and make genuine arguments then that person will be met with respect from me and will be responded to in kind. Until then, those on this website, like yourself, who have no intention of having honest debate but are only interested in bloviating and showing off their own education on the internet because the people in their real lives don't care to listen to them talk, will continue to be met with disdain, hatred, insults and vitriol from me. Their blasphemy deserves nothing else.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

These discussion have become nothing but a near complete waste of my time.

You boys have your fun without me.

If someone shows up that has a really honest question about Open Theism that doesn't spew one hypocritical or blasphemous piece of nonsense after another then perhaps one of you could PM me and let me know, otherwise I'm through being talked down to by these fools who don't know a thing about God nor the Bible and who cannot string three consecutive coherent thoughts together.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Lon, do you believe God predestine people to rape 6 year old boys?

An omnicausal, deterministic view seems to support the accusation despite fancy footwork of compatibilism or middle knowledge (does not resolve the issue).

Does God ordain, predestine cause the good and evil? Ware's modified view recognizes the problem with traditional Calvinism, but does not resolve the issue despite the mental gymnastics.

 

[Nang]

Lon, do you believe God predestine people to rape 6 year old boys?

Slow learners around here . . .

To predestinate the fate of any person, is not the same as causing sin.

Theological views held regarding sovereign determination are not the same as a philosophic fatalistic system, remember?

 

[godrulz]

Slow learners around here . . .

To predestinate the fate of any person, is not the same as causing sin.

Theological views held regarding sovereign determination are not the same as a philosophic fatalistic system, remember?

You are not a good Calvinist if you starting denying determinism, omnicausality, etc. It is the incoherence of your system that created problems for Calvin and His followers. The bottom line is that your view ultimately makes God responsible for good and evil impugning His great character and ways. This is sufficient reason to reject it. The root issue is a wrong view of sovereignty and free will (meticulous vs providential; libertarian vs compatibilistic).

God predestines that those who freely do evil (rape) will be punished. He does not predestine, desire, intend, cause that they do evil. If man's will is the root of sin, then God is no longer omnicausal and His will can be resisted and rejected (my view vs yours).

Jettison monothetism (one will)-determinism-monergism, etc. and you will move to a more biblical theodicy. Otherwise, you are forced to do mental gymnastics to extricate yourself from the predicament (does not work). In fact, determinism and fatalism are close cousins.

 

[Nang]

You are a hypocrite and wouldn't know God from your butt.

You are not well Clete, and I sincerely believe you should stop participating in discussions that arouse such unhealthy anger and vitriol.

You do no favors for the Open Theism cause, and bring disgrace upon the name of God; let alone your own name.

Nang

 

[Nang]

determinism and fatalism are close cousins.

Determinism is divine.

Fatalism is human.

They are not "close cousins."

 

[godrulz]

Determinism is divine.

Fatalism is human.

They are not "close cousins."

God does not decree heinous evil. As long as you do not see man in the image of God with self-determination, free will, etc., you will distort theology.

What is your distinction? Islam is fatalistic. Calvinism is not Islam, but deterministic. What is your differentiation?

Determinism is demonic because it distorts God's character and ways. God can and does determine some things, but you error by saying He determines all things. OT correctly recognizes two motifs, so can take all verses literally rather than dismissing many as figurative only.

 

[Nang]

God does not decree heinous evil.

God decreed Jesus' crucifixion. How evil was that historical event?

Why did God decree this heinous evil?

To work good for those who love Him. (Romans 8:28)

As long as you do not see man in the image of God with self-determination, free will, etc., you will distort theology.

Sinful man is the cause of all evil, even though God decreed and created evil as consequential to the human condition. If you think man supposedly possessing free will is a sufficient theodicy, you are mistaken.

What is your distinction? Islam is fatalistic. Calvinism is not Islam, but deterministic. What is your differentiation?

Same one I just gave you . . .

Determinism (Calvinistic teaching) is divine.

Fatalism (Islamic teaching) is human.


Apples and oranges; good and bad; not "close cousins."

Determinism is demonic because it distorts God's character and ways. God can and does determine some things, but you error by saying He determines all things.

So if God determines all things, except what sinners can choose for themselves, God is good, but if God determines all things in His created universe, God is demonic? What a lousy, illogical argument.

OT correctly recognizes two motifs, so can take all verses literally rather than dismissing many as figurative only.

That's why OT is a lousy, illogical argument. . .

 

[nicholsmom]

God said "now I know",

I agreed to all of Lon's responses & arguments on this, and I seriously doubt that I could do better. He smoked you on that scripture in my opinion, so I'll not bother with it since there's none left for even a puff - sorry.

and "to see if the outcries against Sodom and Gomorrah are true". That couldn't be more plain.

I thought that the OV held that God knows all that is knowable - including all present activity & the hearts & intentions of men. Claiming that this scripture implies that God didn't know a current situation flies in the face even of the OV perspective of God's omniscience. I'm sure Lon also covered this much better than I, but I have limited time on this board & can't read all that interests me.

Did you know that God knows you better than you know yourself? It isn't that he has a crystal ball. Nor can you appear to comprehend that he can bring things to pass. If it was settled, he couldnt' bring things to pass.

Didn't quite catch that one. I think that you have a different idea of "settled" than I have, but I can't be sure.

Now, you say why God said he would see if the Sodom and Gomorrah were as evil as he heard.

Tell me why God didn't know? Why did God have to "receive a report" as if He weren't present in Sodom and Gomorrah the whole time? God is omnipresent (Job 34:22 and Is 29:15 for example).

The fact that this topic is on its second thread and has as many posts as it does just shows some of you don't want to know.

I already said that I don't have time to read it all. I plow through it as often as I can, and I can honestly say that it is you OVers who seem to not want to know - you have been handed your hat by Lon & you keep coming back for more as though you'd made some valid point or other.

 

[Lon]

Lon, do you believe God predestine people to rape 6 year old boys?

An omnicausal, deterministic view seems to support the accusation despite fancy footwork of compatibilism or middle knowledge (does not resolve the issue).

Does God ordain, predestine cause the good and evil? Ware's modified view recognizes the problem with traditional Calvinism, but does not resolve the issue despite the mental gymnastics.

Determinism is demonic because it distorts God's character and ways. God can and does determine some things, but you error by saying He determines all things. OT correctly recognizes two motifs, so can take all verses literally rather than dismissing many as figurative only.

I'd like to get you to ignore 'predestination' for the moment and help me out.

God sees atrocity as it is happening and He can stop it. Yes or No?

Yes or No: God presently allows this to happen without stopping it?

Predestined is no more indicting than this. It adds little to the actual question we both wrestle with because all it is about is the timing of when He knows. Yes or No?

Your question comes across to me like this:

1) God, you see this happening right now, right?

2) God, You knew before this happened that it would happen?

In neither of these (our difference) does the question 'why?' enter.

We both address the 'why' the same way. 'When' is of no consequence to differentiate between us. The real question isn't 'when' (make no difference at all). The real question is 'why.' 'When' has nothing to do with 'why.'

Example for proof:

Today, you saw the kid stealing the bicycle and you did nothing to stop him.

Yesterday, I knew the kid was going to steal the bicycle and I did nothing to stop him.

Whoever is asking us could give a care less about when each of us allowed this. He wants to know why neither of us did anything. "When" isn't even on his mind, he wants to know why and neither of us are indicted about when, we are indicted about why.

God's will is decretive and prescriptive with both of us, I believe. God wills somethings to happen and nothing can thwart Him. God also, between us, allows things to happen for whatever reason. We are both left saying that God is righteous, just, perfect, loving, caring, anguished, detesting sin, etc.

We have the same answer. God is good and He has reasons. Whether we know the answers or not isn't as important as what we believe about Him.

C.S. Lewis, in the first Chronicles has the uncle questioning the Pevensie children who disbelieve Lucy. The uncle calls them to trust in Lucy's character as opposed to the situation that is absurd (she goes into another world).

Similarly, God is trustworthy by His character whether we know what He is doing or not.

I'm not sure why this particular keeps getting clouded in our OV/Calvinism discussions. It seems nothing more than a 'when' question that isn't any kind of real concern to the issue at hand. Any insight from you here might bring it to light somehow. I think I've answered this specific question many times on here now.

 

[Lon]

You are not well Clete, and I sincerely believe you should stop participating in discussions that arouse such unhealthy anger and vitriol.

You do no favors for the Open Theism cause, and bring disgrace upon the name of God; let alone your own name.

Nang

Clete is on my iggy list so I choose to ignore this from him as well.

Of worthy note is this: when OVer's come to this stance where they draw a hard-line in the sand between traditional and OV beliefs. We are no longer able to consider the theology as compatible. By their words, if we do not convert to OV, we are worse than unbelievers. We are 'stupid' 'idiots' 'morons.'

TOL indictments:

Believers(?) express vitriol like this and the leadership condones it? This is Christian?
I don't like the re-definition of what a believer is supposed to be any more than I like what OV does with God's character and attributes.

God becomes more relational:
OVers become more 'like' Him as they see Him.

I'm honestly left for wanting. If that's God? Becoming just like Him? Is He really relational in the OV with such as these disciples?

Common sense says that the God of OV is anything but relational if this is the continued and praised character of his OV people.
Several seem to be sucking lemons to me and I'm not being mean. I'm asking: Who wants to be a part of that kind of group?

In my church, you act like this, you are in for reprimand with the pastor for it (they try in love, if that doesn't do it, for the love of the rest of the body, they get the boot).

I don't know, the God of tradition seems to produce the kinds of people that line up with NT scriptures imo. Even if they were wrong on some theological points, at least they look like scripture says they will look like: Loving one another deeply from the heart. Returning good for evil.

Godrulz has been embarrassed by TOLers here and rightly so. I see an OV rift in the near future. GR and men like him will need to distance themselves from ungodliness or be implicated with them.

Knight, Delmar, anybody.
Does God want believers that look like NT descriptions of lovers of God and men? Does God really mean love your enemies and do good to them?


Are we to take a united stand against all ungodliness or is the line drawn on the other side?

Are we no longer to consider one another believers?
Should I move on and bag the idea that we have anything in common in Christ?

Do something with these hostile ones to show good faith. Reprimand them gently. Encourage their walk. Tell them in love their fruit is in keeping with a poor tree. I've tried nicely, sometimes strongly. I've PMed, gave pos reps. I've not called names. I've not lowered to banter.

Is this people becoming what they believe God to be? Is this an accurate picture?

God judge between us.

 

[godrulz]

God decreed Jesus' crucifixion. How evil was that historical event?

Why did God decree this heinous evil?

To work good for those who love Him. (Romans 8:28)




Sinful man is the cause of all evil, even though God decreed and created evil as consequential to the human condition. If you think man supposedly possessing free will is a sufficient theodicy, you are mistaken.



Same one I just gave you . . .

Determinism (Calvinistic teaching) is divine.

Fatalism (Islamic teaching) is human.


Apples and oranges; good and bad; not "close cousins."



So if God determines all things, except what sinners can choose for themselves, God is good, but if God determines all things in His created universe, God is demonic? What a lousy, illogical argument.






That's why OT is a lousy, illogical argument. . .

It is a lame Calvinistic argument (rationalization) to equate the sending of the Lamb of God to voluntarily die for our redemption (higher good consistent with God's will; wisdom; love) with the rape and murder of a child (heinous evil contrary to God's will). You need a course in logic, theology, and critical thinking.


If sinful man is the cause of evil, then your omnicausal, meticulous control view of God is not true. You want your cake and eat it too because of a flawed position. This is why Calvin, Spurgeon, etc. had to be inconsistent and contradictory.

What is the difference between determinism and fatalism? Both negate responsible, accountable choices and have a fixed future. If you are saying one is caused by God and the other is a view without God, the end result is the same. It becomes hard to distinguish God from Satan since both desire and cause evil (God sends people to hell that He could save and send to heaven; the thief comes to kill and destroy, but Christ comes to give life; in your view, Jesus and Satan both desire and decree and do evil?!).

If God determines everything, freedom, love, relationship, accountability, etc. are off the table. It also logically makes Him responsible for countless evil, suffering, etc., things that are contrary to His character and will and grieve Him (in your view, God's grief is figurative because He wants everything to happen that happens so would not be grieved like the Bible says).

The two motifs is a stronger hermeneutic and resolves the issues of sovereignty and free will (unlike Calvinism). Just because you do not 'get it', does not mean it is a lousy argument.

I see why Clete has given up on you guys (though I don't condone this).:rip:

 

[godrulz]

God sees atrocity as it is happening and He can stop it. Yes or No?

Yes or No: God presently allows this to happen without stopping it?

Your question comes across to me like this:

1) God, you see this happening right now, right?

2) God, You knew before this happened that it would happen?


God's will is decretive and prescriptive with both of us, I believe. God wills somethings to happen and nothing can thwart Him. God also, between us, allows things to happen for whatever reason. We are both left saying that God is righteous, just, perfect, loving, caring, anguished, detesting sin, etc.

God does have the power to stop things, but has wisely allowed creatures to have significant, finite, irrevocable freedom. A deterministic view that negates genuine freedom ultimately is a biblical compromise to retain a skewed view of sovereignty divorced from love, relationship, freedom (TM).

Allowing something to happen is not condoning, desiring, intending it for a higher good (flawed logic on your part?). We allow our children to do stupid things because we choose not to micromanage them and allow them to grow to maturity, even at great risk. This is the price of love and reciprocal relationships vs robotics, owner-animal, etc.

I do not assume that God knows the future exhaustively, so your argument stalls there. There are implications in a deterministic vs non-deterministic view. One of us is wrong on basic assumptions.

God does not have secret wills, contradictory wills, multiple fancy wills that act as loopholes to get God off the hook, etc. I do not need mental gymnastics to explain the obvious.

You rightly claim that God is good, righteous, etc., but leave things as a mystery when in fact there is a logical, theological problem that can be resolved with a more cogent theological worldview. I can claim and support these things. I think you can claim them, but use the 'mystery, antimony' loophole. Yes, there are mysteries, but there is more light on this issue than you realize.

Do not underestimate the bias you bring to the text when you define sovereignty as control and free will as compatibilistic (not true in human authority, so why must it be true in divine authority? God is omnicompetent vs omnicausal, secure, not insecure, in His providential rule).

 

[tetelestai]

Believers(?) express vitriol like this and the leadership condones it? This is Christian?

Hi Lon:

I get, and agree what you are saying. However morality, and acting mature does not automatically mean that you are right and they are wrong (Calvinism is correct and OVT is wrong).

For the record, I am neither a Calvinist, nor OVT, I think they both are two extremes that are both false teachings. I agree that Godrulz (OVT) conducts himself in a mature manner, whereas Clete, Lighthouse, etc (also OVT) do not act “Christlike”, or in a mature manner.

There are many false teachers who act “mature”, but this does not mean that what they preach is the truth, and I believe there are some “fire & brimstone” preachers out there who are right on the mark.

I am by no means condoning Clete, Litghthouse, etc, but just because you are acting more mature, wise, and taking the high ground does not mean that Calvinism is the truth anymore than what Godrulz says means OVT is the truth.

Again, I give you credit for conducting yourself in such a mature manner, I think we can all learn from your demeanor, but at the same time, this is not proof that what you believe is the truth.

Moreover, one cannot simply say "look at me, I am mature, and morally good, therefore I am right and you are wrong".

Hope this makes sense Lon, and please don't take it the wrong way.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

This is indirectly related to open theism.

Luke 4

1: And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
2: Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
3: And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
4: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
5: And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

How was this possible?

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon:

I get, and agree what you are saying. However morality, and acting mature does not automatically mean that you are right and they are wrong (Calvinism is correct and OVT is wrong).

For the record, I am neither a Calvinist, nor OVT, I think they both are two extremes that are both false teachings. I agree that Godrulz (OVT) conducts himself in a mature manner, whereas Clete, Lighthouse, etc (also OVT) do not act “Christlike”, or in a mature manner.

There are many false teachers who act “mature”, but this does not mean that what they preach is the truth, and I believe there are some “fire & brimstone” preachers out there who are right on the mark.

I am by no means condoning Clete, Litghthouse, etc, but just because you are acting more mature, wise, and taking the high ground does not mean that Calvinism is the truth anymore than what Godrulz says means OVT is the truth.

Again, I give you credit for conducting yourself in such a mature manner, I think we can all learn from your demeanor, but at the same time, this is not proof that what you believe is the truth.

Moreover, one cannot simply say "look at me, I am mature, and morally good, therefore I am right and you are wrong".

Hope this makes sense Lon, and please don't take it the wrong way.

I agree and disagree. The high road is verification. You are correct and this is a repeat of what I told Godrulz: There are unbelievers in every camp, no question. TOL is an OV website and owned by them. What they condone, allow, ordain is important for an initiate theology. While immaturity is expected, I appreciate Godrulz making a stance against this kind of behavior.
The most important aspect of our theology is what kind of people it is making us into. James said faith without works is a dead thing. Doctrine without life-change is dead. So I very much disagree with you that sound doctrine can be divorced from practice, it cannot. If the whole accept the ungodliness, it casts a great shadow upon the theological position. An initiate theology necessarily must distance if it is to be viewed as divergent orthodox rather than ungodly heretical. The faith of Israel was right and Orthodox yet the majority were lost and only a remnant saved. On this I totally agree. Rather what I was saying is that the righteous ones must denounce unrighteousness and ungodliness. My call in thread was for this, not a wash of all that is OV.

In my church, there are Arminians and Calvinists both. Your assertion that Calvinism is false-teaching is an extreme evaluation and I believe wrong/overstated and probably not the view your denomination holds. It should not be a divisive issue. Long before I became Calvinist, I loved them even while disagreeing or unpersuaded as an Arminian. Presbyterians are Calvinist and you'll not find the harsh ones there. They are a gentle gracious lot.