ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Clete]

Yorzhik,

Excellent arguments! Keep it up! :thumb:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Z Man

You know, if I was the owner of this website, I would of told you to not waste our time by coming in here and posting a few words that do nothing to add to the debate. But, I'm not the owner, so oh well...


Practice what you preach Knight.

 

[Clete]

Knight,

Don't worry about it. Z Man just forgets sometimes that everything we do was predestined before time began.

 

[Turbo]

LOL! Yeah, God predestined Knight to not practice what God predestined Knight would preach in order to glorify Himself. And He predestined that Z Man would get irritated about it, which also glorifies God and demonstrates His sovereignty. :dizzy:

 

[Yorzhik]

Something I think I notice. Hilston says that our "wants/intents" are decreed (controlled) by God and that after that we do everything freely. However, Z Man says that our "wants/intents" are our own, but our actions are controlled by God.

I wonder how Hilston's view and Z Man's view would be resolved between them?

 

[Hilston]

Hi Yorzhik,

Preface to my response: Please make an effort to spell my name correctly. It's important for readers to know who is referring to whom, and to be able to search according to username as well.

Hilston wrote: I prefer the latter. But I can tolerate sin. God cannot. I understand the Open Theist God is not so intolerant, and that’s one of my primary complaints against the view.

Yorzhik writes:
If Jesus is covering the sins of the saved, and the unsaved go to hell… what sin is God tolerating?

The obvious answer is "none." That's why your question makes no sense. Surely you saw this coming. Bad actions with a good attitude are sin. Good actions with a bad attitude are sin.

Yorzhik writes:
But on to the subject. …"That your child does what you want, but makes it clear they do so in protest –or- the child fails to do what you want but they tried hard to accomplish what you want, and they show a desire to do what you want…"; you chose the latter as would I or any other parent. The point of the story was not that you can tolerate sin. The point is that what a child wants is more important than what a child does. Another way to say it is; a child's attitude is more important than their actions.

To me, yes, because I can tolerate sin. Not to God. He cannot tolerate wrong actions with a good attitude; nor can he tolerate good actions with a wrong attitude.

Yorzhik writes:
If you could control the "wants" of your child, your control would be complete. You would never have the right to be disappointed with their actions.

That description applies to God's control of men's wants.

Yorzhik writes:
Because control of the more important is control of the less important just as control of a computer program's main is control of all of that program's sub-routines. Then again, if you controlled the entirety of your child's "wants" then you would have a robot and not a child.

That's right where the Open Theist cataract precludes their ability to think rationally. If a "want" is controlled, it is still a "want." Don't you see that?

Yorzhik writes: I guess this is where we disagree. God can still be culpable if He has an understanding of right and wrong. It doesn't matter if there is someone bigger than God, or not.

Hilston wrote: Obviously, you don’t know what culpable means.

Yorzhik writes:
Are you sure? I think I'm using it the way it is defined here:

cul•pa•ble adj. Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. See Synonyms at blameworthy.

Do you actually believe God could be held guilty for wrongdoing? How? By whom?

Yorzhik previously wrote: All that is required is a standard to measure against. In the case of God, it is a peer-to-peer comparison.

Hilston wrote: That’s not rational. God doesn’t compare Himself to Himself to determine something about Himself.

Yorzhik writes:
It is rational because you are wrong that God is comparing Himself to Himself like a human would. This would just be Hilston making God into a big human, and nothing more.

No, you've missed the point. God is without peer. There are not three Gods who compare themselves with one another.

Yorzhik previously wrote: Judas was mentioned by name? or the actions of unnamed men that we identify after the fact as Judas and others involved in the Passion?

Hilston wrote: That’s like saying, since the Hebrew scriptures no where say “Jesus,� it could have referred to the actions of an unnamed man that we identify after the fact as Jesus, but it could have been anyone.

Yorzhik writes:
No, it's not like saying Jesus could have been anybody. Jesus was a constant in the plan of salvation; the others were not (like Judas).

Judas was in the plan of salvation from the foundation of the world, Yorzhik, at which point the angels would NOT have found Judas' name written in the Book of Life.

Yorzhik writes:
So was Judas mentioned by name? or could it have been anyone that did the same things that Judas did?

Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning some heretofore unknown person, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

I guess you're right. It doesn't mention Judas by name. I suppose it could've been anybody.

Hilston wrote: It’s not a question God has to ask Himself.

Yorzhik writes:
No one is saying anything about God asking Himself.

On the contrary, Yorzhik. This is what Clete is doing. "How does God know He is good?" That implies a question God must ask of Himself. It's ridiculous.

Hilston wrote: The mock-dialogue was intended to show how ridiculous the claim is, yet you treated it with seriousness and actually tried to improve my characterization of it! It’s no better, Yorzhik. It is still utter nonsense.

Yorzhik writes:
And to you, "Let Us make man in Our own image" is nonsense, too.

That is God's decree. That is not God wondering if He is God, or wondering if He is good, or wondering if He is righteous.

Yorzhik writes:
The point is, we have glimpses into the nature of the Trinity, and my understanding of the Trinity has more evidence that it's true than yours does.

I'm glad I'm not you. My understanding of the Trinity doesn't depend on evidence to verify it.

Hilston wrote: Not true, Yorzhik. Jesus was declaring the inherent and supreme authority of the Godhead, not authority that is testified and justified before men. The point is that there is no higher testimony than the Godhead, in toto. You cannot separate the Persons of the Godhead in this way and make any sense whatsoever. Jesus certainly was not trying to justify the Persons of the Godhead.

Yorzhik previously wrote: If you cannot establish the bolded sentence, then you cannot establish your statement. Can you give me a complete rundown on exactly how we do separate the Godhead?

Hilston wrote: It can’t be done. You might was well say the Son knows He is good because He looked at His own goodness as the standard and decided, “Yup, I must be good because my behavior lines up with my own goodness.�

Yorzhik writes:
At least you admit you cannot establish your statement.

Nice try, Yorzhik. Are you a journalist? When I said, "It can't be done," I was affirming the bolded sentence. What cannot be done is separating the Persons of the Godhead. Do you see that is what you're trying to defend -- the potential for a rift in the Godhead?

Yorzhik writes:
But again, you are wrong about Jesus looking at Himself when I described the peer to peer relationship that Jesus has with the Father.

You're missing the point. He might as well be looking at Himself. The Godhead is completely united in will, desire and purpose. You cannot separate the Persons of the Godhead in this way and make any sense whatsoever.

Yorzhik previously wrote: The prescription for righteousness is to follow God's rules, whatever they happen to be at the time. Rules change, righteousness doesn't.

Hilston wrote: Righteousness is ascertained by a standard, Yorzhik! The rules, Yorzhik!

Yorzhik writes:
That's what I said. What something is, and how we ascertain it are two different things.

Are you being deliberately dense? If the rules that define righteousness change, the righteousness changes. If it is righteous to observe food restrictions at some point in history, but unrighteous to observe food restrictions at some other point in history, that which is righteous has changed.

Hilston wrote: So I ask again: Does the current standard of righteousness prescribe abstinence from meat-strangled or not?

Yorzhik writes:
I answered your question. The standard, at any time, is to follow God, to try to be like Him in nature; to love God.

OK, so following God's example, do you observe food restrictions or not?

Yorzhik writes:
... murder was wrong before men were created.

Oooooh kay. I suppose eating meat-strangled was wrong before men were created, too. Right? Oh wait, I almost forgot. This is where you abandon reason and fall back on "follow God rules, whatever they happen to be at the time." What were the rules about eating meat strangled before men were created, Yorzhik? How about Sabbath observance? What were the rules about circumcision before men were created?

Yorzhik previously wrote: The God of the bible says the opposite of: " … it was God's will to design everything in such a way that these problems and evil would exist …"

Hilston wrote: Then why did Paul ask the question as if God did say that?

Yorzhik writes:
Reference?

Can you think of anyplace where Paul asked why God found fault with man if His will cannot be resisted? But of course, according to the Open Theists, somehow God responded with, "No, you're wrong, my will CAN be resisted."

Yorzhik previously wrote: The only time a prophesy of something bad happening is thwarted is if the action of that bad thing is no longer required.

Hilston wrote: This is new to me. Isn’t there a whole list pf prophecies that Open Theists claim to have been thwarted?

Yorzhik writes:
Yes.

Hilston wrote: Is every one of them of this nature (i.e., a bad thing that is no longer required)?

Yorzhik writes:
No.

Are some of those prophecies of something good happening, but is thwarted?

Yorzhik writes:
My OV friends would agree that mankind was always physically capable of starting a fire and throwing their kids in it. So in that way, it obviously entered God's mind. However, when God considered what man would actually do, this scenario didn't enter God's mind as a real possibility. But there is disagreement about how impossible God thought it was, or how God treated the knowledge. Then again, it isn't really important – among OV'ers, it is a tangent that could go either way and although we argue it, we realize it isn't that important.

Of course. That's because Open Theists, regardless of their specific understanding of this passage, are happy to agree, to varying degrees, as long as the verses are viewed as denigrating God's exhaustive knowledge and bring Him down to their level.

Hilston wrote: I wouldn’t take it that far. God not only expected it, He decreed it. But His words to Israel were intended to shame them.

Yorzhik writes:
You wouldn't take it that far? Sheesh, what I wrote is patently wrong if God decreed what was done. Please re-write the passage replacing what you consider the figure(s) of speech with their actual meaning.

I've already said what the actual meaning is, and what you wrote isn't wrong as long as you recognize it as a figure of speech.

Yorzhik writes:
Can you see that there are a finite number of games to be played in chess? Currently, from the links, IIRC, it is considered there are about 10^20 games of chess that can be played. The number isn't important, but can you agree that there is a finite number of "lines" (each a full game) in the game of chess and each one is unique and each one ends in either a white win/black loss or a white loss/black win or a draw?

Yes.

By the way, I noticed the following:

Last edited by Yorzhik on 09-14-2004 at 01:56 PM

If you're going to edit your posts so long after posting, please indicate in the post what you've changed. Sometimes I copy the post and answer it over the course of several days. I don't want to waste time replying to stuff that you later changed.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't know when I'll get to your post. I'll do as soon as possible.

But in the meantime;

Hilston wrote
Preface to my response: Please make an effort to spell my name correctly. It's important for readers to know who is referring to whom, and to be able to search according to username as well.

Sorry about that, I type it once at the beginning of my response and copy it from that point forward. I fixed it.

Hilston wrote
By the way, I noticed the following:

Last edited by Yorzhik on 09-14-2004 at 01:56 PM

If you're going to edit your posts so long after posting, please indicate in the post what you've changed. Sometimes I copy the post and answer it over the course of several days. I don't want to waste time replying to stuff that you later changed.

If it had been a change to what I said, I would have made another post or mentioned what the edit was. It was a formatting change so I didn't think there was a need to mention it. Also, I sometimes go back and fix typo's if I see them.

 

[JustAChristian]

Some Fallacies of Calvinism

Some Fallacies of Calvinism

If one accepts the two basic premises of Calvinism, predestination and total hereditary depravity, one is almost obligated to accept the rest of the system. If one predestined to heaven is born in sin, some direct Divine action is required to prevent him from going to hell. Since Adamic sin prevents him from doing anything to help himself, he cannot believe the gospel or react in any way to any kind of effort on his behalf. God must do it all. And in order to eliminate the necessity of repeated interventions by God, the action must be indelible. Thus, predestination and original sin necessitate effectual calling, irresistible grace, and final perseverance. The limited atonement concept of Calvinism is essential if one accepts Calvin's view of unconditional salvation; otherwise God would have started something he could not finish, and that is unthinkable, all the more so to the Calvinist mind.

Many of the fallacies of the Calvinist system are apparent The free agency of man is in direct conflict with absolute sovereignty of God; conditions of salvation like faith, repentance, and baptism plainly contradict unconditional salvation. Predestination that specifies pre-named individuals to go to heaven or to hell apart from any action on their part makes God a respecter of persons. Christ died for all men, not just for a select few. Men have a part in reconciliation, and men must continue to grow in faith, virtue, knowledge, etc., to make their calling and election sure.

Additional scriptures could be cited for a point-by-point refutation of Calvinism, and this has been ably done by many able writers. Many debates have been held on the possibility of apostasy and on the place or purpose of baptism in the gospel plan of salvation. It is beyond the scope of the present lecture to go into these points, and it is believed unnecessary anyway in view of the matters already considered.

In the first three centuries of the Christian era the emphasis in the doctrine of election was on the freedom of man's will; then came Augustine. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), a philosopher before his conversion, was an ascetic whose extreme consciousness of sin led him to speculate as to the reason for its universality. He concluded that sin was so common because men were born sinners by heredity, and his doctrine of "Adamic sin" was accepted as the standard belief of Roman and Greek Catholics. He also taught predestination and other concepts adopted by Reformation leaders.

John Calvin (1509-1564) took Augustine's concepts of predestination and original sin and made them his major premises upon which to build a systematic theology. In doing so, Calvin borrowed from Luther, Bucer, Wycliffe, Huss, and others, but he especially copied Augustine. The writings of Calvin are full of quotations from and references to Augustine.

The Calvinist view of election, modified and softened by various influences including debates with our brethren, largely prevails in today's Protestant world. Many of its concepts, derived from Augustine, are also held solidly by Catholics, but the early church held a different view.

JustAChristian

 

[Hilston]

Re: Some Fallacies of Calvinism

Re: Some Fallacies of Calvinism

Originally posted by JustAChristian

If one accepts the two basic premises of Calvinism, ... The limited atonement concept of Calvinism ... Calvin's view of unconditional salvation ... the Calvinist mind ... the Calvinist system ... Calvinism ... then came Augustine. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), ...
John Calvin (1509-1564) ... Augustine's concepts ... Calvin borrowed from Luther, Bucer, Wycliffe, Huss, and others, but he especially copied Augustine ... writings of Calvin ... references to Augustine ... The Calvinist view of election ... derived from Augustine ...

I'm sorry to say, JustAChristian, but you've wasted your time typing all that out.

Speaking from experience, no one here is very much interested in what Calvin and Augustine actually taught. The most outspoken opponents to all things Calvinistic/Augustinian here at +OL do not seem to care on whit about what some dead guys from the 5th and 16th centuries had to say. The fact that many of those who espouse Calvinism on this forum misrepresent the view doesn't help matters much.

 

[Z Man]

Yeah...

I don't care about Calvin or the such. Never read anything from him personally. I only believe in what I've read from out of the Scriptures. The Bible teaches predestination, election, depravity, etc. That's what I like about the doctrine that has been labeled 'Calvinism'; you don't have to add anything to the text to make the doctrine stand. The Scriptures pretty much support all of 'Calvinism' by Itself.

I post here on TOL, not to represent 'Calvinism', but to represent the TRUTH of God's Scriptures. I like to get people to see what is actually written, and that's it. But too many people are stubborn and close-minded - afraid to give up what they've been taught from men. When they read Scripture, they read what they've been taught, not what is actually written. Too many Christians today read the Scriptures 'deductively' instead of 'inductively'...

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

Yeah...

I don't care about Calvin or the such. Never read anything from him personally. I only believe in what I've read from out of the Scriptures. The Bible teaches predestination, election, depravity, etc. That's what I like about the doctrine that has been labeled 'Calvinism'; you don't have to add anything to the text to make the doctrine stand. The Scriptures pretty much support all of 'Calvinism' by Itself.

I post here on TOL, not to represent 'Calvinism', but to represent the TRUTH of God's Scriptures. I like to get people to see what is actually written, and that's it. But too many people are stubborn and close-minded - afraid to give up what they've been taught from men. When they read Scripture, they read what they've been taught, not what is actually written. Too many Christians today read the Scriptures 'deductively' instead of 'inductively'...

and did you come to the conclusion all by yourself of did someone show it to you?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

and did you come to the conclusion all by yourself of did someone show it to you?

It's the conclusion I've come to through reading Scripture.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

It's the conclusion I've come to through reading Scripture.

before or after you were told about calvinism?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

before or after you were told about calvinism?

I was never told about 'Calvinism' - never. I simply was shown some stuff in Scripture that I never saw before. I mean, I had read it before, but never in full context of the whole Scriptures. Anyways, I only studied the Scriptures and I came to believe in what I believe today. Call it Calvinism, or whatever you wish, but that's not what I 'follow', or learned about, I can assure you.

I only believe in what I've read.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

I was never told about 'Calvinism' - never. I simply was shown some stuff in Scripture that I never saw before. I mean, I had read it before, but never in full context of the whole Scriptures. Anyways, I only studied the Scriptures and I came to believe in what I believe today. Call it Calvinism, or whatever you wish, but that's not what I 'follow', or learned about, I can assure you.

I only believe in what I've read.

why do you think you never saw those things before? why would you still be in your old position if someone hadn't come along and shown you particular things from the scriptures?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

why do you think you never saw those things before? why would you still be in your old position if someone hadn't come along and shown you particular things from the scriptures?

I was raised in a Christian home, and my dad is a pentacostal preacher. So I basically learned everything about doctrine and theology and the Bible from him. I never really read the Bible to learn more about God, or to see if what my dad was preaching was really true. I had just assumed that he knew what he was talking about and believed it. When I did read the Bible, I read it wearing the glasses of my dad's doctrine. I applied what I knew to what I read. I thought everything made sense. I never really heard about the TULIP doctrine, or the doctrine that teaches 'once saved always saved'. All I knew were that 'baptists' believed that they could sin all the time and still be saved. That was the extent of my knowledge concerning eternal security.

Anyways, joining the Navy was a good thing. I suddenly realize that there were many people with many different views than mine. And that there were parts of Scripture that I had never been taught, or had ever heard preached about in church (Romans 9 was a life changing chapter for me... ). So anyhoo, the passages that spoke of election and predestination and God's sovereignty and such really got my attention. I fought earnestly against the 'TULIP' doctrine, until I realized it was Scriptural. I could not deny the Word of God, the final authority. It was a hard battle, and one that finally snapped my mind, and I gave in. I fought for 3 months against it, but the evidence in Scripture was too heavy for me to deny. The Bible actually blew me away that day. My Christian walk hasn't been the same since.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

I was raised in a Christian home, and my dad is a pentacostal preacher. So I basically learned everything about doctrine and theology and the Bible from him. I never really read the Bible to learn more about God, or to see if what my dad was preaching was really true. I had just assumed that he knew what he was talking about and believed it. When I did read the Bible, I read it wearing the glasses of my dad's doctrine. I applied what I knew to what I read. I thought everything made sense. I never really heard about the TULIP doctrine, or the doctrine that teaches 'once saved always saved'. All I knew were that 'baptists' believed that they could sin all the time and still be saved. That was the extent of my knowledge concerning eternal security.

Anyways, joining the Navy was a good thing. I suddenly realize that there were many people with many different views than mine. And that there were parts of Scripture that I had never been taught, or had ever heard preached about in church (Romans 9 was a life changing chapter for me... ). So anyhoo, the passages that spoke of election and predestination and God's sovereignty and such really got my attention. I fought earnestly against the 'TULIP' doctrine, until I realized it was Scriptural. I could not deny the Word of God, the final authority. It was a hard battle, and one that finally snapped my mind, and I gave in. I fought for 3 months against it, but the evidence in Scripture was too heavy for me to deny. The Bible actually blew me away that day. My Christian walk hasn't been the same since.

thanks for sharing i really enjoyed reading that :up:

would you say that you are pretty much "locked" into reading your bible that way now, i mean that when you read it you see TULIP in many places? or is there any chance that if someone showed you a more biblically true theology you would change?

in other words, what would it take for you to leave the doctrine of TULIP in favor or something else?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

thanks for sharing i really enjoyed reading that :up:

:thumb:

would you say that you are pretty much "locked" into reading your bible that way now, i mean that when you read it you see TULIP in many places?

It's funny actually. Now when I read my Bible, I do see so many instances of God's sovereignty being displayed that I never saw before. I'm still discovering things about the Scriptures and their teaching on God's sovereignty and such that is new to me; that I had never seen before.

I really don't know how to explain it. But when I use to read the Bible, I read it with the intent of seeing how I could improve my life. Now when I read it, I see so much more in the Bible. I read not just to see what it says about how I should live, but my main motivation in reading the Scriptures is to discover what it says about life and God in general. I no longer read it, applying my life and knowledge to it. But now I read it to gain knowledge. I build my theology and doctrine on what I read, not vice versa. It's very different from what I use to do, and it's exciting for me. I actually enjoy reading the Bible now, because there are so many 'gold nuggets' that just suddenly appear that I had no idea existed before.

I'd say, yeah, I'm pretty much 'locked' in this doctrinal view for now. In fact, every time I read the Bible, my theological views are only strengthened that much more.

or is there any chance that if someone showed you a more biblically true theology you would change?

Perhaps. The key is that it be biblical. I've lived on the 'other side' most of my life, and while over there, I never fully understood the Bible, nor read and accepted ALL parts of it. Some of it was too 'hard' to swallow. And when I did confront Scriptures that did speak of predestination and the such, I usually came up with some sort of way to get out of the real issue on the topic. In other words, I avoided it. When I didn't believe in the 'TULIP' doctrine, I felt that I did not fully accept, or grasp, 100% of the Bible. I only liked the parts that agreed with my theology at that time.

It would be really hard for someone to show me that my views are wrong Biblical, considering that I believe in what I believe now because I base it solely on Scripture. Everything I use to beleive in was totally scraped from my mind, and my doctrine had to start anew. I used the Scriptures to build it up, so I think it would be impossible to see Scripture tear it down.

in other words, what would it take for you to leave the doctrine of TULIP in favor or something else?

Full Biblical proof, in it's whole context, from Genesis to Revelation. I just don't see an 'Open View' type God when I read Scriptures. From the OT to the NT, we read of a God who knows the future, sovereignly chooses whom He wills to do whatever He pleases, and so forth.

I have several friends who have become 'new' Christians within the past few months. They had never really grown up in a Christian home, so they were never filled with any pre-conceived ideas on theology and the such. So when they got saved, they zealously read their Bibles. When I talked with them about what I believed, concerning salvation and such, they agreed. When I told them about the 'Open View', they were astonished and couldn't believe it. To them, they saw a sovereign God in Scriptures. No one told them anything about 'Calvinism', etc. They just read the Bible and built their doctrine upon that. Their doctrine is identical to what I believe.

I have yet to meet someone who has read the Bible for the first time, after just being saved, and not having come from a Christian home with pre-conceived doctrines, ever believe in a God that the Open View portrays.

 

[Clete]

Please read the post linked to below...


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=594076#post594076

God bless you guys!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik wrote: If Jesus is covering the sins of the saved, and the unsaved go to hell… what sin is God tolerating?

Hilston wrote:
The obvious answer is "none." That's why your question makes no sense. Surely you saw this coming. Bad actions with a good attitude are sin. Good actions with a bad attitude are sin.

Wait… so you admit the OV God is tolerating "none" sin. And the question was (to paraphrase in short: "what do you prefer, the child's wants or the child's actions?" Honestly, my question does not require tolerating sin. In fact, I only had the child that has a good attitude "fail" in my example to make clear that the child's attitude was the more important thing. The example could just as well have had the child succeed (good attitude, good actions). I also wasn't trying to say we can control our child's wants (if that's the way you took it); I thought it was a given that we cannot control our child's wants.

So now that we've established that, can we move on? If God controls our wants, then we can do no wrong… but we will also be robots, too.

Yorzhik wrote:
If you could control the "wants" of your child, your control would be complete. You would never have the right to be disappointed with their actions.

Hilston wrote:
That description applies to God's control of men's wants.

Right, therefore God has no right to be upset with men's actions, and men have the right to be angry at God when they are punished for "God's control".

Yorzhik wrote:
Because control of the more important is control of the less important just as control of a computer program's main is control of all of that program's sub-routines. Then again, if you controlled the entirety of your child's "wants" then you would have a robot and not a child.

Hilston wrote:
That's right where the Open Theist cataract precludes their ability to think rationally. If a "want" is controlled, it is still a "want." Don't you see that?

Sure, and a controlled "want" is the responsibility of the one that is doing the controlling, which includes the actions (sub-routines) that come from that want.

Hilston wrote:
Do you actually believe God could be held guilty for wrongdoing? How? By whom?

No one. God is the biggest on the block. That doesn't preclude righteous anger at God by the free-will agents that He created if God was not fair with them.

Hilston wrote:
No, you've missed the point. God is without peer. There are not three Gods who compare themselves with one another.

Right, God is without peer, but we don't have language that describes a God that is one, and yet is more than one.

Hilston wrote:
Judas was in the plan of salvation from the foundation of the world, Yorzhik, at which point the angels would NOT have found Judas' name written in the Book of Life.

Not only do you mis-understand the Book of Life, but what I said is only wrong in your unsubstantiated theology.

Hilston wrote:
Act 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning some heretofore unknown person, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

I guess you're right. It doesn't mention Judas by name. I suppose it could've been anybody.

Acts, eh? A prophesy about the Passion in Acts? Can you cite the passage by David that is being referred to here? And later on, you ask me if I'M a journalist!

Hilston wrote:
On the contrary, Yorzhik. This is what Clete is doing. "How does God know He is good?" That implies a question God must ask of Himself. It's ridiculous.

Of course God asking Himself if He is good would be ridiculous. That is why I'm talking about one person talking about it to another.

Yorzhik wrote:
And to you, "Let Us make man in Our own image" is nonsense, too.

Hilston wrote:
That is God's decree. That is not God wondering if He is God, or wondering if He is good, or wondering if He is righteous.

That's not the point. The point is that God can call Himself "Us".

I'm glad I'm not you. My understanding of the Trinity doesn't depend on evidence to verify it.

Yes, I can see what you believe is baseless.

Hilston wrote:
Not true, Yorzhik. Jesus was declaring the inherent and supreme authority of the Godhead, not authority that is testified and justified before men. The point is that there is no higher testimony than the Godhead, in toto. You cannot separate the Persons of the Godhead in this way and make any sense whatsoever. Jesus certainly was not trying to justify the Persons of the Godhead.

Yorzhik wrote:
If you cannot establish the bolded sentence, then you cannot establish your statement. Can you give me a complete rundown on exactly how we do separate the Godhead?

Hilston wrote:
It can’t be done. You might was well say the Son knows He is good because He looked at His own goodness as the standard and decided, “Yup, I must be good because my behavior lines up with my own goodness.�

Yorzhik wrote:
At least you admit you cannot establish your statement.

Hilston wrote:
Nice try, Yorzhik. Are you a journalist? When I said, "It can't be done," I was affirming the bolded sentence. What cannot be done is separating the Persons of the Godhead. Do you see that is what you're trying to defend -- the potential for a rift in the Godhead?

And I was referring to your affirming what you said instead of establishing what you said. Until you establish what you said, you have no foundation for your claim.

Yorzhik writes:
But again, you are wrong about Jesus looking at Himself when I described the peer to peer relationship that Jesus has with the Father.

Hilston wrote:
You're missing the point. He might as well be looking at Himself. The Godhead is completely united in will, desire and purpose. You cannot separate the Persons of the Godhead in this way and make any sense whatsoever.

Sure it is united completely in will, desire, and purpose. That does not preclude the Spirit and the Father and Jesus from testifying concerning each other. Yet God is one. Does it make sense? No, it doesn't. But then again, I allow God to be transcendent when He says He is transcendent, where you have to make God into a big human.

Hilston wrote:
If the rules that define righteousness change, the righteousness changes.

I'm cutting off the rest of the discussion on this topic and I'll only mention this line. Apparently we have different definitions of "righteousness", so we cannot proceed until that is ironed out. Here is my definition of "righteousness":

Righteousness noun 1. The quality or state of being righteous; holiness; purity; uprightness; rectitude. … 4. (Theol.). The state of being right with God

And yes, we will get to why murder was wrong before the earth was created and eating certain foods was not wrong at the same time, but eating certain foods was wrong later.

Hilston wrote:
Can you think of anyplace where Paul asked why God found fault with man if His will cannot be resisted? But of course, according to the Open Theists, somehow God responded with, "No, you're wrong, my will CAN be resisted."

Reference? Just let's get into this verse. You start since you brought it up.

Hilston wrote:
Are some of those prophecies of something good happening, but is thwarted?

Yes

Hilston wrote:
Of course. That's because Open Theists, regardless of their specific understanding of this passage, are happy to agree, to varying degrees, as long as the verses are viewed as denigrating God's exhaustive knowledge and bring Him down to their level.

Only in your unsubstantiated theology.

Hilston wrote:
I've already said what the actual meaning is, and what you wrote isn't wrong as long as you recognize it as a figure of speech.

Quite… it was meant to shame them. We agree. However, what I think we would disagree on, and what I thought was clear with my explanation of the figure, is that God expects the probable things to happen, not the improbable. God is saying, quite directly, that something happened that He didn't expect; that something more probable was expected to happen – but it didn't.

Yorzhik writes:
Can you see that there are a finite number of games to be played in chess? Currently, from the links, IIRC, it is considered there are about 10^20 games of chess that can be played. The number isn't important, but can you agree that there is a finite number of "lines" (each a full game) in the game of chess and each one is unique and each one ends in either a white win/black loss or a white loss/black win or a draw?

Yes.

If there are a finite number of games, you can see that when the first move is made, that the game has begun down one of the 10^20 (or so) paths? And if the first move is (for example) King pawn to King 4, then all the paths that start with another move are now precluded from being the game that started with King pawn to King 4 - Yes?