ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Bright Raven]

Hail, humble one.

Honestly, if our position is not firstly argued from Scripture, it is weak. However, Scripture does not resolve all the issues in this debate, so we have to consider godly reasoning, philosophy, speculation in formulating an understanding of some areas (the Bible is not a systematic theology book, but a narrative of God's relationship with man).

God can be in control without controlling everything. It is contradictory for Nang and others to say we have choice, but God controls it...cmon. We are not puppets and God is not a puppet master. Determinism is not the biblical model of God's rule.

Scripture is the final authority on all issues. 2 Timothy 3:16. Godly reasoning and wisdom come from one source, God and His Word. Your answer tends to place yourself as the Master rather than visa-versa. Philosophy may enter in if a man is the Captain of his soul.

 

[godrulz]

Scripture is the final authority on all issues. 2 Timothy 3:16. Godly reasoning and wisdom come from one source, God and His Word. Your answer tends to place yourself as the Master rather than visa-versa. Philosophy may enter in if a man is the Captain of his soul.

The weight of evidence is that God experiences endless time, not timelessness. You have to resort to Platonic philosophy/Augustine, etc., human reason to justify 'eternal now'. EDF, LFW, sovereignty vs free will, exact nature of Trinity or incarnation, etc. are not resolved with a proof text or two. Our paradigms and assumptions factor into our formulations on some things.

The Bible is the final authority, but does not resolve every issue in detail.

 

[Clete]

Who are you to determine whether the term is used correctly or not, when you misinterpret and misrepresent the Calvinist view, while failing to present a view of your own that will withstand the scrutiny of Holy Scripture.

Nang

I am determining nothing of the sort. As I said when I first engaged this topic a few posts ago, the word means what it means and THE ONLY context in which the word means meticulous control of every event that occurs, which is what AMR was saying, is in Calvinist/Augustinian theology.

The word means highest authority. I didn't make that up, Nang. That's what the word means. The Bible doesn't define it in any other way. Your doctrine does but your doctrine isn't the test of truth that AMR seems to think it is.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

it seems many open viewers misrepresent calvinist beliefs. whether its ignorance or intentional is hard to tell. im not a calvinist btw, but they are correct on a lot of things.

Saying it doesn't make it so, voltaire.

If you think I or some other Open Theist has misrepresented something then demonstrate it. Make the argument, admit that you cannot, or else stop saying things that your are either incapable or unwilling to establish.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Saying it doesn't make it so, voltaire.

If you think I or some other Open Theist has misrepresented something then demonstrate it. Make the argument, admit that you cannot, or else stop saying things that your are either incapable or unwilling to establish.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The real truth is that Calvinists are infamous for misrepresenting Arminianism as Pelagianism (it is not) and OVT as Deism, finite godism, or Process Thought (straw men).

They simply beg the question and assume their view is true, no matter how indefensible it is.

It is true that Calvinists are not wrong on everything (nor are Catholics, etc.).

 

[Clete]

Let me ask you a question, Clete. Do you believe that where ever You are God is?

Me personally, yes. I have been baptized into the Holy Spirit and He lives in me and through me.

That, however, is not what you were really asking me, was it.

God is able to be everywhere at once but is only in those places where He wants to be.

Do you believe that whatever you suffer God suffers with you? I believe that God is not ignorant of what happens to His children.

I agree. God is not ignorant of anything He wants to know but is not required to know anything that He does not want to know.

That is really what is being said but not well said. That is what happens when we let theological professors define things for us.

I think that I disagree with this. The theological concepts of omniscience and omnipresence (and the other omni's and im's) are philosophical terms with very specific meanings and with very specific and far reaching implications that go far beyond whether or not God can relate to us and cares for us.

There is much of what you and I believe that we accept because of some supposed authority told us. We, not having studied the scripture at the time for ourselves rely on these supposed theologians for our understanding. After all didn't they study under the masters in a school somewhere.

Are you serious?
Any theological position that I hold which has not been Biblically established to my satisfaction (I can't think of any off the top of my head) I hold only very loosely until such time as either I or a teacher I trust does establish it with Scripture and sound reason. I cannot think of a single theological position that I hold to simply on the basis that I was taught it by "some supposed authority".

However, teaching is the role of a teacher and not all are given that particular spiritual gift. But just because a person is not a teacher doesn't give them the right to be intellectually lazy. At the very least they should hold their teacher's feet to the fire and demand that they teach properly. That is to say that they should teach not just the doctrine but the Biblical and rational basis of that doctrine.

Some things God revels to us that is contrary to our original belief but at a time when through experience and suffering we gain the knowledge in God's time for our growth. Some things we were not prepared to accept or understand even though we might wont to.

Now this I agree with entirely. Our flesh is the biggest obstacle to the understanding of God's Word.

God is in the business of raising his children and we should not be insulting to our brothers and sisters. It is easy to fall into that trap. You and I have insulted each other enough to know that is true.

Indeed.

I cannot clam innocence for myself and I hope you don't. Lets be careful not to injure the weak ones for whom Christ died. I am trying and I hope you can tell the difference.

I can not only tell but the difference astonishes me.

Intellectual honesty is so refreshing! :BRAVO:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Nang, you know better than that. Never once has the scripture ever said that me our anyone else has to believe your way to be saved and if a wrongly held theological position is held by one of the Children of God it will not incur judgment in the sense that punishment well be dealt out in heaven.

Whether we like it our not as lone as we are on this planet and in these bodies the things of God must pass through this carnal filter. There is only one thing that saves us and that is by making the choice to believe that Jesus is God's Son and believing the testimony God gave of Him.

e4e,

Don't waste your time. Nang believes that everything is predestined, remember?

Someone's denying the omni attributes was predestined, her not recommending it was predestined, her belief that such a rejection would cause judgment day to go badly for you was predestined, your admonishing her dishonesty was predestined, her rejection of your admonishment has been predestined and on and on and on.

 

[godrulz]

Clete is a tongues talker?!:chuckle:

You did not tell me you are Pentecostal.

 

[penofareadywriter]

Only if you deny His absolute sovereignty, which I do not recommend. It will not stand you well, on Judgment Day.

BTW . . .to Tetelestai . . .

Remember our private discussion about theologies and views that introduce new views and theories that have never been taught in the churches for almost 2000 years of historical Christianity?

Open Theism is another one of those new-fangled religions, that was unknown to the O.T. saints or the early and historical N.T. church of Jesus Christ.

It is invalid on those grounds, if no other grounds.

Nang

"that have never been taught in the churches for almost 2000 years of historical Christianity?" It can be argued that is WAS taught (OV) for the 2000 years before Augustine IN THE SCRIPTURES.

 

[Clete]

Clete is a tongues talker?!:chuckle:

You did not tell me you are Pentecostal.

Huh?

 

[voltaire]

well clete, i have seen numerous posts where an open viewer claims that calvinism teaches this or that only to see AMR or nang object and say that they dont understand that particular tenet of calvinism. since they both are deeply studied in calvinism, i would assume they no more about than those whose only knowledge comes from anti calvinist polemical writers.

 

[Clete]

well clete, i have seen numerous posts where an open viewer claims that calvinism teaches this or that only to see AMR or nang object and say that they dont understand that particular tenet of calvinism.

So why in the world do you take the word of AMR or Nang?

Who are they?

Read the Calvinist's own articles of faith. Read the Westminster Confession, or Augustine's Confessions or go to a Calvinist website and read the things they say about who God is to people they agree with and with whom they have no axe to grind.

Ask basically anyone that isn't on a website that is clearly hostile to their worldview and who isn't here for the express purpose of contradicting anything and everything any Open Theist says.

Since they both are deeply studied in calvinism, i would assume they no more about than those whose only knowledge comes from anti calvinist polemical writers.

Nang and AMR are both bold faced liars, voltaire. Give me a break.

I mean use your own ability to think and you can tell that nothing is being misrepresented. Calvinists commonly give lip service to the notion of free will or at the least they acknowledge that we are somehow responsible for our actions but then they will turn right around a plainly state that God predestines everything that happens. Nang just gave you the perfect example of their typical double talk. They do it so often that they don't even notice it. Look at what Nang said to me on this very thread....

from post 1873

I don't deny that Calvinists acknowledge God to be the highest authority but that is not what they are saying when they use the word 'sovereign' in reference to Him.

We aren't?

Then in the very same post!...

The Calvinist concept of Divine Sovereignty is akin to the omni attributes.

Where is God? God is everywhere: Divine Omnipresence.
What does God know: God knows everything: Divine Omniscience.
What can God do? God can do anything. Divine Omnipotence.
What does God control. God controls everything. Divine Sovereignty.

Such is the very definition of God.

To deny the omni-attributes of God, is to deny the essence and Being of God.

I certainly hope you can see the contradiction. I know that Nang can but she doesn't care. In her mind, at worst, its merely an antinomy.

If there is any "misrepresentation" that happens at all its when we Open Theists ignore the concept of antinomy and simply call such doctrines contradictory and treat them as such. The Calvinist calls foul when we do that because they enjoy playing both sides of the fence and don't like it when we pin them to one side or the other. They are fond of antinomy because they believe that the acceptance of contradiction in the name of their religion is a mark of faith and piety on their part. Fortunately for me, and all Open Theists, this makes it really easy to defend against accusations of misrepresentation because all I have to do is to point you to their own words to prove my case, so long as you are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge what you see.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Thanks for the substantive response by the way. Its just so much better than a naked personal opinion hanging out there with no explanation or justification. :thumb:

 

[Nang]

It can be argued that is WAS taught (OV) for the 2000 years before Augustine IN THE SCRIPTURES.

The Jews taught Open Theism?

Amazing . . .

I have never seen such teachings in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Can you point me to references?

Nang

 

[Clete]

The Jews taught Open Theism?

Amazing . . .

I have never seen such teachings in the Old Testament Scriptures.

Can you point me to references?

Nang

I'll give you one...

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.​

No, I won't explain it to you but its there.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

So why in the world do you take the word of AMR or Nang?

Voltaire isn't taking my word for anything, but asking you to back up your judgmental criticisms of those holding to the Reformed faith. Can you do that, apart from assertions, personal denials, and hateful ad hominem?

IOW's, can you answer an intelligent man on an intelligent level, as he deserves?

Who are they?

Christians who profess faith in Christ and His Word. Persons who should be respected from all others who also profess to call on the name of Christ as their Lord.

Nang and AMR are both bold faced liars, voltaire. Give me a break.

Clete, you bear false witness, which is an extremely serious sin.

AMR and myself may not always be right, but we are not liars. We post our beliefs and our witness, with sincere hearts before you, others, and before the Lord God.

Nang

 

[Nang]

I'll give you one...

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.​

No, I won't explain it to you but its there.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You won't explain it, because there is no way to adapt this Scripture to fit Open Theism. NO WAY!

Your posts have become totally anti-intellectual, and thereby substantially and totally illogical.

Nang

 

[voltaire]

clete. i tried to follow that exchange you posted between you and nang. i dont know what you guys are talking about so im far from finding a contradiction. i dont have a an iron in this fire so i will just butt out. but thanks for the compliment.

 

[godrulz]

Huh?

You said something about having the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' (Pentecostal lingo linked with tongues).

 

[Clete]

You said something about having the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' (Pentecostal lingo linked with tongues).

Ah! I see. :idea:

 

[Clete]

clete. i tried to follow that exchange you posted between you and nang. i dont know what you guys are talking about so im far from finding a contradiction. i dont have a an iron in this fire so i will just butt out. but thanks for the compliment.

The contradiction is that she first directly implied that I was wrong when I said that Calvinist mean more than "highest authority" when they use the word 'sovereign' and then a few moments later she basically said that you're going to Hell if you deny that God controls everything that happens.

So she both acknowledges that I'm right about her doctrine and denies it practically in the same breath. And they ALL do this! At least all of the Calvinists who have frequented this website. This waffling back and forth on such issues is perhaps the strongest argument against their doctrine. Truth is not contradictory and Calvinists can't keep from contradicting themselves all over the place. They do so almost every time they make a post. All you have to do is look for it. You don't even have to know what their theology is to see it once you start looking for it.

Resting in Him,
Clete