ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

2 Corinthians 5:19 (KJV).

The world is the elect?

The Calvinistic view of elect vs non-elect is flawed.

 

[godrulz]

godrulz doesn't debate anyone and therefore doesn't mind when his relatively unsupported points go ignored by whomever he says them too.

Ouch...not fair or true, I hope.

Oh well, Jesus was not popular with everyone.

I just want to be your friend, Mr. Clete....do you take bribes?:bowser:

 

[godrulz]

'kinds' Nang said all 'kinds'

Eisegesis...take it at face value.

 

[Lon]

I wonder if taking their attacks with a grain of salt is more realistic than escalating to disfellowshipping, etc. Like myself, sometimes I overreact due to personal insult/injury. We can maturely work through it by practical vs actual ignore rather than melodramatic martyrdom.

(I am rested, but writing like I am sleep deprived...oh no, dementia is setting in).

I'm not sure if it is escalating. I do believe you are more of the 'smoothing' over diplomat kind. I believe it temperament and how we see God's call and act upon it. Certainly we differ here. I have no problem with your approach as God has gifted you. I, on the other-hand, believe it necessary to separate dross from theology. Banter just clouds as you rightly claim in the post before this and I believe it necessary to clear it away at times. Sure dust flies, but it is my hope in the end that a cleaned house is easier to function in for our proceeding debates. It is because I agree with you about it that I become contentious (not mean-spirited, just calling on scripture). I've done the same over at CARM. Ungodly behavior discredits and mucks up the works as well as adding absolutely 'zero' to the conversation or giving anybody direction toward truth. Jesus gave us the 'fruit' test in the first place, for good reason.

 

[Lon]

Eisegesis...take it at face value.

Oh, I agree, it was merely that this was her statement that cleared that point.

The second post to STP cleared this up (I think).

 

[Clete]

Matthew 5: 21-22 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Perhaps you don't consider Nang to be "your brother," but what if she is? Should you risk "the fire of hell?"

The Bible repeatedly calls various people fools. Unless you are ready concede that Jesus taught something contrary to the rest of Scripture (not to mention His own actions) then you have little choice but to grant what should be the obvious point that Jesus' teaching is to not call someone a fool without cause.

Matthew 5:18-19 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Will you teach (by baiting) Nang to break the 6th commandment - according to Jesus's interpretation of it (Matthew 5:21-22)?

The sixth commandment does not apply to any member of the Body of Christ. Nang, being an unbeliever, will be judged by the law if she does not repent and accept the gospel as presented by the Apostle Paul.

Then if you are in fact safe from hellfire (by Nang perhaps not being your "brother"), then you will at the very least be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Not a worthy goal in my mind.

I am not, nor will I ever be a member of the Kingdom of Israel. As a member of the Body of Christ I am identified in Christ and thus no matter of law applies to me any more than it does to Christ Himself who gave the law and is Lord of it. Being identified in the King of heaven makes me a member of the Kingdom of Heaven but that is not the context of Christ's statements in the Gospels. Jesus was speaking in reference to Israel's Kingdom specifically.

Perhaps you should be scared. Again I remind you of the words of Christ Himself: Matthew 5:21-22.

I find it interesting that you didn't quote that whole passage in your post. I don't know if it because you didn't read it or because you did. I'll assume because of lack of evidence to the contrary that it wasn't because you read it. Read it now...

Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Ouch...not fair or true, I hope.

Oh well, Jesus was not popular with everyone.

I just want to be your friend, Mr. Clete....do you take bribes?:bowser:

Generally it is true, godrulz. I'm sure there are exception but generally you simply discuss things and your explore issues but you don't really debate things. You don't do a lot of argument building and solid establishment of your points. You put your two cents in and let it speak for itself. Nothing really wrong with that. A little annoying at times (to me) but hey, nobody's perfect.

And yes, of course I take bribes! For a hundred bucks a month I'll be your best friend!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I am intrigued by this argument. Please tell me the extent of God's knowledge. How exhaustive is it? I'm not talking about foreknowledge - just plain knowledge of current situations, men's hearts and intentions.

God knows everything that He wants to know of that information which is rationally knowable.

It is not possible to be more specific than that, nor is it necessary.

Does God really know the hearts of men? Or are there any who are absolutely determined to act without any reservation whatever? Are there men who are thoroughly given over to a reprobate mind?

You use terms that are often loaded with meanings that are not obvious by merely a surface reading of your questions. Are they real questions or are you trying to make some rhetorical point? If the latter, what's the point? I don't get it. Otherwise, I need clarification about what you are asking. What do you mean by "know the hearts of men"? The obvious answer to that question is a resounding "yes" but again, there are a lot of things you could mean by that question which makes such a straight forward answer impossible.

Does God really see all things currently occuring (this would counter the being run over a bus idea)?

I agree, God would not be surprised by something like that, at least not in the short term (days or perhaps weeks in advance) but things that are directly contingent on the freely made decision of men cannot be known for certain (not even by God) and that includes whether or not a person will repent of stealing a bike or not. He can have a really good idea about whether a person will repent or not, a much better idea than you or I could have but that isn't the same as definite knowledge.

Most importantly, while a crime is being committed, God has the ability to stop said crime. Why does He not?

Because He doesn't want to stop the human race - yet.

People have free will. If God wanted to prevent every act of rebellion, He could but then they wouldn't have free will and the whole point of our existence would vanish.

But God is not slack concerning justice. Our lives are a vapor. Our entire history is a mere moment when compared to the vast expanse of the infinite existence of God. What seems like a long time to us is but a moment to God. People will not get away with their crimes for long.

He does not need to have any foreknowledge, He can act immediately and forcefully to prevent the crime, can He not?

Not without ending the human race as we know it. He waits because of mercy. His will is that all should come to repentance. That certainly cannot happen if God brings the history of mankind to an end but His patience will not extend forever.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

I'm not sure if it is escalating. I do believe you are more of the 'smoothing' over diplomat kind. I believe it temperament and how we see God's call and act upon it. Certainly we differ here. I have no problem with your approach as God has gifted you. I, on the other-hand, believe it necessary to separate dross from theology. Banter just clouds as you rightly claim in the post before this and I believe it necessary to clear it away at times. Sure dust flies, but it is my hope in the end that a cleaned house is easier to function in for our proceeding debates. It is because I agree with you about it that I become contentious (not mean-spirited, just calling on scripture). I've done the same over at CARM. Ungodly behavior discredits and mucks up the works as well as adding absolutely 'zero' to the conversation or giving anybody direction toward truth. Jesus gave us the 'fruit' test in the first place, for good reason.

We need more light and less heat. What good is it to win an argument and lose the person?

Sometimes it may be best to agree to disagree and part ways due to personality, history, etc.

It is a free country (which is why I did not appreciate having to conform to AMR's demands, unreasonable at times).

 

[Clete]

If you had this philosophy in marriage, you would end up divorced?

I am not married to Nang and if I were I would want a divorce!

I do not get married to my enemy nor can the relationship with a spouse be rightly paralleled to that of an enemy.

If we are all family and army of God (I know you doubt this for some in question), we should find a way to patiently dialogue if they are trying their best.

I've done this, godrulz. I've done it over and over and over again.
I generally have to try at least five or six times before I just give up on them and I do not treat people as enemies unless they are teaching blasphemous things and/or being intentionally dishonest.

Most of us also once had a veil clouding our thinking (Catholicism, Calvinism, traditional ideas about eternal now/omniscience, etc.) until we 'saw the light'. Others were likely frustrated with us while we tried to defend our views until we had the paradigm shift (then we tend to become argumentative, bombastic...like a former smoker or something).

We aren't talking about trivial matters here, godrulz. We are talking about things that directly touch the very heart of God Himself. Nang actually believes (proudly so) that God is arbitrary! That means that her god isn't the same one you believe in, godrulz. If you'll notice, I don't get all uptight about issues like baptism or which hymns you sing or whether you speak in tongues or not. I have very definite opinions about those issues and I believe that I can very clearly establish my position on those issues Biblically and rationally but if I fail to convince someone on such an issue I don't start calling them stupid simply because I've failed to convince them and I certainly do not question their salvation based on such issues. Its only when a person begins describing a god that is incompatible in some fundamental way with the God of Scripture that I do that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Generally it is true, godrulz. I'm sure there are exception but generally you simply discuss things and your explore issues but you don't really debate things. You don't do a lot of argument building and solid establishment of your points. You put your two cents in and let it speak for itself. Nothing really wrong with that. A little annoying at times (to me) but hey, nobody's perfect.

And yes, of course I take bribes! For a hundred bucks a month I'll be your best friend!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Canadian or U.S. $? (things have tanked recently)

I do appreciate your logical style of arguing. I am not schooled or disciplined in this. I am weary of formal education, so it is easier and preferred to respond with as much or little depth as warranted in any given post. Generally, I prefer to follow 1000 threads superficially with quicker responses then a few threads with detailed responses that I am not convinced many would read or understand.

Perhaps I have ADHD or am lazy? Perhaps I am the nose in the Body and you are the brain?

I agree that Nang impugns the character and ways of God (and have said so), but I do not think that means she is an unbeliever in the same category as a Muslim or Mormon.

 

[Clete]

Canadian or U.S. $? (things have tanked recently)

I do appreciate your logical style of arguing. I am not schooled or disciplined in this. I am weary of formal education, so it is easier and preferred to respond with as much or little depth as warranted in any given post. Generally, I prefer to follow 1000 threads superficially with quicker responses then a few threads with detailed responses that I am not convinced many would read or understand.

Perhaps I have ADHD or am lazy? Perhaps I am the nose in the Body and you are the brain?

You, I'd wager, have the total opposite personality type that I have. This alone probably accounts, to one degree or another, for every difference there is between us, including doctrinal differences. It also means that in person, you and I would probably get along very well indeed. All of my closest friends are extroverted feelers like yourself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[nicholsmom]

...I find it interesting that you didn't quote that whole passage in your post. I don't know if it because you didn't read it or because you did. I'll assume because of lack of evidence to the contrary that it wasn't because you read it. Read it now...

Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire​

Resting in Him,
Clete

I quoted the NIV. I didn't purposely leave out part of it. Just wanted to clear that up for now. The rest I'll deal with tomorrow when I have more time.

 

[Nang]

Not without ending the human race as we know it. He waits because of mercy. His will is that all should come to repentance. That certainly cannot happen if God brings the history of mankind to an end but His patience will not extend forever.

This makes no sense.

How and why would God will "all" men come to repentance at any point of time (like today versus tomorrow), when multitudes from the beginning of time have already perished in their sins?

Your comment would only make sense if God had His desires absolutely and totally fulfilled, and salvation of "all" men was historical reality, throughout the entire world, from the very beginning, until this very moment. Then, God would have reason to extend the times, as you claim, to allow the rest of the "all" to repent and get saved. (Of course, this scenario establishes Universalism, which makes your remarks quite odd.)

Allowing the human race to continue will never achieve "all" men coming to repentance. It is too late. God has ordained multitudes and multitudes to perish in their sins . . .even today, untold numbers of souls have died without knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Scripture tells us that God's longsuffering with evil, is for salvation of "all" the elect. When the last elect soul is born into this world and saved by the grace of God, then the end of the human race and the elements of this existance will be burned with fire. (I Peter 3:1-18)

Nang

 

[Nang]

I agree that Nang impugns the character and ways of God (and have said so),

Bah . . . I do not.

 

[Clete]

This makes no sense.

How and why would God will "all" men come to repentance at any point of time (like today versus tomorrow), when multitudes from the beginning of time have already perished in their sins?

You are too stupid to get it, Nang.

Just drop it and go back to believing whatever the Hell you want to believe.

Your comment would only make sense if God had His desires absolutely and totally fulfilled, and salvation of "all" men was historical reality, throughout the entire world, from the very beginning, until this very moment.

See what I mean?

Seriously, Nang! Your brain does not work. Stop trying to understand anything. Its hopeless. I might as well attempt to explain it to a June Bug.

Then, God would have reason to extend the times, as you claim, to allow the rest of the "all" to repent and get saved. (Of course, this scenario establishes Universalism, which makes your remarks quite odd.)

:bang:

Okay, not a June Bug, a brick. I might as well try to have a discussion with a pile of broken and useless bricks.

Allowing the human race to continue will never achieve "all" men coming to repentance.

That means that God doesn't get everything He wants.

:duh:

It is too late. God has ordained multitudes and multitudes to perish in their sins . . .even today, untold numbers of souls have died without knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Scripture tells us that God's longsuffering with evil, is for salvation of "all" the elect. When the last elect soul is born into this world and saved by the grace of God, then the end of the human race and the elements of this existance will be burned with fire. (I Peter 3:1-18)

Nang

See what I mean, godrulz?

Nang does not believe in a God of justice but in an arbitrary god who has chosen who will go to Hell and who will not by fiat. The elect, in her world, I nothing but cosmic lottery winners.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

That means that God doesn't get everything He wants.

:duh:

A God that does not get everything He wants, the way He wants it, is not God.

You bring God down to the sorry level of a loser, who wants but does not get.

:noway:

 

[godrulz]

You, I'd wager, have the total opposite personality type that I have. This alone probably accounts, to one degree or another, for every difference there is between us, including doctrinal differences. It also means that in person, you and I would probably get along very well indeed. All of my closest friends are extroverted feelers like yourself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Extroverted feeler?! Maybe online?

Growing up, I was insecure, introverted, shy, a loner. God has remolded me in many ways, but I am still more introverted, solitary, mind over feelings (ask my wife and kids...they would laugh at the idea that I was extroverted or emotional enough...they mock me for having online TOL friends vs real life friends...they put me down for being intellectual vs emotional).

Thx, I think?

 

[Nang]

Extroverted feeler?! Maybe online?

Growing up, I was insecure, introverted, shy, a loner. God has remolded me in many ways, but I am still more introverted, solitary, mind over feelings (ask my wife and kids...they would laugh at the idea that I was extroverted or emotional enough...they mock me for having online TOL friends vs real life friends...they put me down for being intellectual vs emotional).

Thx, I think?

Anyone who sports a goatee is not introverted . . .

 

[godrulz]

This makes no sense.

How and why would God will "all" men come to repentance at any point of time (like today versus tomorrow), when multitudes from the beginning of time have already perished in their sins?

Your comment would only make sense if God had His desires absolutely and totally fulfilled, and salvation of "all" men was historical reality, throughout the entire world, from the very beginning, until this very moment. Then, God would have reason to extend the times, as you claim, to allow the rest of the "all" to repent and get saved. (Of course, this scenario establishes Universalism, which makes your remarks quite odd.)

Allowing the human race to continue will never achieve "all" men coming to repentance. It is too late. God has ordained multitudes and multitudes to perish in their sins . . .even today, untold numbers of souls have died without knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Scripture tells us that God's longsuffering with evil, is for salvation of "all" the elect. When the last elect soul is born into this world and saved by the grace of God, then the end of the human race and the elements of this existance will be burned with fire. (I Peter 3:1-18)

Nang

In your view, God is too close to Satan. God desires some to perish, whereas Satan desires all to perish. This is a matter of degree, not basic love and goodness.

God desires and intends all to come to repentance. Not all do so. Your omnicausal view forces you to compromise God's love and goodness making Him arbitrary (Clete is right). The correct solution is to affirm self-evident free will (the means to freedom or bondage) and see that the sovereign God gives us a say so to reject or receive freely His mercy and grace.

You question begger/beggar, you...each: