ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Godrulz,
I assume that you avoided my question you quoted evidently because it's too painful. Suit yourself, although self delusion might feign as soothing, it can not be satisfying in the long run.
As to "you" attacking "me" for admonishing you to respect God's word first and foremost in the light of you showing clear and constant attention to man's views when it comes to spiritual truth, you are without shame and honor and truth.
Your constant reverence for man's tradition is on practically every post you make while mine is just the opposite.
(1Way reasoning faith from scripture)
God expects us all to be of one mind and of one faith, and so for some reason, when you see me agreeing with God that it should all be of likeminded faith, you get harshly upset and slandering and start explaining why it is that we naturally disagree, and where we should turn to figure things out, not God's word but manmade reference works, not God's word but manmade consensus, not God's word but manmade tradition, not God's word first and foremost, always something else. Four posts in a row and you knocked yourself out proving that your faith is foundationally concerned with man's understanding.
Also, now I see that you have a shallow view of the open view too. We open viewers do not "reconcile" two otherwise problematic concepts. We simply understand that the false ideas that were thrust upon the bible were in fact ,,, false! So when we consider the predestination and free will teachings, no resolution is needed, there is no problem to solve, no reconciliation, the entire bible is a proof text for your faith.
God's word first and foremost, not manmade tradition.
I assume that you avoided my question you quoted evidently because it's too painful. Suit yourself, although self delusion might feign as soothing, it can not be satisfying in the long run.
As to "you" attacking "me" for admonishing you to respect God's word first and foremost in the light of you showing clear and constant attention to man's views when it comes to spiritual truth, you are without shame and honor and truth.
Your constant reverence for man's tradition is on practically every post you make while mine is just the opposite.
(1Way reasoning faith from scripture)
God expects us all to be of one mind and of one faith, and so for some reason, when you see me agreeing with God that it should all be of likeminded faith, you get harshly upset and slandering and start explaining why it is that we naturally disagree, and where we should turn to figure things out, not God's word but manmade reference works, not God's word but manmade consensus, not God's word but manmade tradition, not God's word first and foremost, always something else. Four posts in a row and you knocked yourself out proving that your faith is foundationally concerned with man's understanding.
Also, now I see that you have a shallow view of the open view too. We open viewers do not "reconcile" two otherwise problematic concepts. We simply understand that the false ideas that were thrust upon the bible were in fact ,,, false! So when we consider the predestination and free will teachings, no resolution is needed, there is no problem to solve, no reconciliation, the entire bible is a proof text for your faith.
God's word first and foremost, not manmade tradition.
What shallow view of Open Theism? What specifically am I compromising the view on? Enyart's version is atypical and is only part of what most Open Theists have believed from before he was born (McCabe and others). I believe in free will. I reject Calvinistic decrees and double predestination. However, there is a biblical concept of predestination.
Romans 16:7 Was Junias a male or female? Was he/she an apostle or not?
This has come up with sozo on another thread. A superspiritual, anti-intellectual approach will not allow you to resolve this issue.
Romans 16:7 Was Junias a male or female? Was he/she an apostle or not?
This has come up with sozo on another thread. A superspiritual, anti-intellectual approach will not allow you to resolve this issue.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
godrulz,
Did I just express that you have a "shallow view of open theism? Sorry, I guess I must be willfully ignorant tonight, because I was thinking that I had given a context of meaningfully developed concepts explaining why I made that judgment/charge/challenge. Yet, for some reason you have not shared that with us, you don't even address my reasoning for the challenge.
Did I just express that you have a "shallow view of open theism? Sorry, I guess I must be willfully ignorant tonight, because I was thinking that I had given a context of meaningfully developed concepts explaining why I made that judgment/charge/challenge. Yet, for some reason you have not shared that with us, you don't even address my reasoning for the challenge.
Rolf and Z Man,
Listen you guys, I know I was the one who engaged you on this thread and so I don't really have an excuse but I'm just going to have to drop this discussion for now. I've gotten so busy with work and other things that I simply cannot keep up!
My main purpose for having jumped in here has been served already, which I know makes it real convenient for me to duck out while the getting's good but I assure you that no such cowardice is involved. If I had the time to give the discussion the time it deserves I'd love to continue; it is, after all, one of my favorite issues!
Anyhow, I just wanted to drop this quick post in here just so you didn't think that I was simply ignoring you guys. When things calm down at work, I'll be back, I promise and I'll continue to keep tabs on the thread so as to keep up with the discussion.
God bless!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Listen you guys, I know I was the one who engaged you on this thread and so I don't really have an excuse but I'm just going to have to drop this discussion for now. I've gotten so busy with work and other things that I simply cannot keep up!
My main purpose for having jumped in here has been served already, which I know makes it real convenient for me to duck out while the getting's good but I assure you that no such cowardice is involved. If I had the time to give the discussion the time it deserves I'd love to continue; it is, after all, one of my favorite issues!
Anyhow, I just wanted to drop this quick post in here just so you didn't think that I was simply ignoring you guys. When things calm down at work, I'll be back, I promise and I'll continue to keep tabs on the thread so as to keep up with the discussion.
God bless!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Rolf Ernst
New member
Clete--you think it is hard to keep up with forums because of your job. I assure you it is equally hard when you don't have your own internet service and have to use your sister's computer. See ya!
Z Man
New member
All I wanted to know is what your take on 2 Samuel 12:11-12 was. Does ''I will give your wives to another man, and he will go to bed with them' mean adultry or not?
But, if you're THAT busy so as to not be able to provide a simple answer, I guess you really need a break from work.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
godrulz, twice in a row I've referenced my explanation. It was when I said that you have a shallow understanding of the Open View, that was when I shared my reasoning why. I'm not like others who may commonly make claims or challenges or foundational conclusions in one post and completely leave out the reasoning for why they said that. I believe some like stalling to try to bolster up their own position in the mean time with support references. However, I tend to try to preserve the context involved. I hope you can appreciate that much. I don't think I have anything more to add, unless perhaps you will actually give me something to respond to besides baseless personal slander.
Point repeated with some elaboration
You said the open view harmonizes (or something to that effect) two otherwise problematic ideas having to do with man's free will and God's sovereign control and predestination. I said in effect, no, that is not an accurate characterization and shows that you have a weakness in understanding that needs bolstering (unless you self correct of course). The seeming conflict between the two are no conflict at all, the open view does no reconciliation, instead it simply conforms to what God's word teaches INSTEAD OF LEANING ON MANMADE VIEWS. False doctrine was replaced by Biblically faithful truth. You can't harmonize what is in perfect harmony, you can't fix what is not broken, you can't reconcile something that is perfectly united.
So next time, I suggest to you to instead, say it like a man rightly dividing the word of truth. You are not part of the world and human tradition that "knows" that these two ideas need a proper biblical harmonization, right? You are personally identified with the truth that set you free, you should "know" that that such manmade tradition is false and biblically bankrupt. Right?
I believe you owe me other non-responses, like me asking why you emphasize relying on man's views when the issue is biblical truth. That was the reason I asked the two A B questions, but you SOMEHOW forgot the entire context and reason for the questions. But enough is enough, if you find it to painful to respond, it's not hard to understand why you have been unusually evasive lately.
Point repeated with some elaboration
You said the open view harmonizes (or something to that effect) two otherwise problematic ideas having to do with man's free will and God's sovereign control and predestination. I said in effect, no, that is not an accurate characterization and shows that you have a weakness in understanding that needs bolstering (unless you self correct of course). The seeming conflict between the two are no conflict at all, the open view does no reconciliation, instead it simply conforms to what God's word teaches INSTEAD OF LEANING ON MANMADE VIEWS. False doctrine was replaced by Biblically faithful truth. You can't harmonize what is in perfect harmony, you can't fix what is not broken, you can't reconcile something that is perfectly united.
So next time, I suggest to you to instead, say it like a man rightly dividing the word of truth. You are not part of the world and human tradition that "knows" that these two ideas need a proper biblical harmonization, right? You are personally identified with the truth that set you free, you should "know" that that such manmade tradition is false and biblically bankrupt. Right?
I believe you owe me other non-responses, like me asking why you emphasize relying on man's views when the issue is biblical truth. That was the reason I asked the two A B questions, but you SOMEHOW forgot the entire context and reason for the questions. But enough is enough, if you find it to painful to respond, it's not hard to understand why you have been unusually evasive lately.
I have not been evasive nor is it painful to respond. Sometimes I simply do not read excessively long posts from those who personally put me down. I am not playing dumb. I honestly missed why you felt my views were inadequate. General accustation should be backed up by specifics as you did here. Other times it is not worth the time and energy when some eggshell people overreact and jump to conclusions about every little idea.
1) Sovereignty/predestination and free will have been debated endlessly. One problem is an unbiblical understanding of sovereignty. I agree with the gist of your paragraph and would not be too quick to judge my observation that many have inadequately wrestled with these concepts. I agree that a right understanding of Scripture resolves the issue. Our assumption is that the systematic Open View is Scriptural. Do not nit pick. We are saying the same thing.
The Open View must be built on a Scriptural foundation. Historical and philosophical issues also have some bearing. The Bible is not a text book on modal logic, but this discipline helps clarify and support the Open View (cf. science supporting a literal reading of Genesis and divine creation).
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Godrulz
1
Here's the current issue in question, I was most concise and the following was the entire extent of that point!
Your view
As to my other claim that you are evasive because you keep avoiding the question. After several consecutive posts politely addressing the issue of your continued reliance upon man's traditions prior to first and foremost seeking out God's view, I finally had to post the following, and yet even then you avoided the main point about your repeated reliance upon man's views.
If I challenge you according to biblical precepts like
1
Here's the current issue in question, I was most concise and the following was the entire extent of that point!
Please reconsider.
Your view
- The open view reconciles predestination with man's free will.
- No it doesn't, the open view conforms to the bibles teachings on both, it is only manmade tradition that implies that the two need harmonizing. You can not possibly harmonize something that is already in perfect harmony.
- If
- you agree with my version that the open view does not harmonize things, then stop all this personal attacks and finally make the personal correction.
or if
- you disagree with my difference of opinion, then just say so, but don't try to retell the entire story like we are both saying the same thing, the level of incongruity is rather sizable.
As to my other claim that you are evasive because you keep avoiding the question. After several consecutive posts politely addressing the issue of your continued reliance upon man's traditions prior to first and foremost seeking out God's view, I finally had to post the following, and yet even then you avoided the main point about your repeated reliance upon man's views.
So at the height of my suspicion and challenge that you were paying too much attention to manmade tradition, you responded to me in terms of where you are over discerning the truth about mid acts. You said
- that millions didn't naturally come to that view, an argument based purely upon manmade tradition. "I suggested" that it's better to approach the bible "WITHOUT" so many human presuppositions and MANMADE TRADITION, but instead your "millions" are the stock and trade of "manmade tradition", it comes from no where else but "the masses", "the millions". You "say" God's word first and foremost, but then you demonstrate the truth. As a general rule, actions speak louder than words.
- You referenced another manmade work, which was a critique on the Plot in terms of helping you determine the biblical truth, and you were not even done with the Plot and bible study over this issue of the mid acts view. So for you, you go first to man, in order to review/critique man's views, as your journey in determining biblical truth. Oh, and hopefully some day you will finally sufficiently studied God's word over that issue too. Sure, I concede that the last part might be exaggeration, but I got your progress reports all from you!
If I challenge you according to biblical precepts like
- keep God's word first and foremost and let every man be a liar and God be true,
It is refering to adultery but it is not necessary to conclude from this passage that God is forcing the parties to commit it.
I would have to read through the chapter to know the context of the passage but I suspect that the adultery is a natural consequence of prior sin. A consequence that God might otherwise have prevented in some way.
It doesn't really matter frankly. The point is that it simply is not logically necessary to concluse from this passage that God predestined, or is forcing in some way, the sinning parties to commit adultry. If He had, there would be no guilt on their part and there certainly would be on God's part.
God does not ordain sin, period. Any suggestion to the contrary is blasphemy and cannot be done from Scripture without wrenching things out of context and/or reading something into the text that is not there and/or assuming too much based on a simple surface reading of the text.
Don't be a jerk, okay?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Z Man
New member
2 Samuel 12:11-12
"'Because of what you have done, I, the LORD, WILL CAUSE your own household to rebel against you. I will give your wives to another man, and he will go to bed with them in public view. You did it secretly, but I will do this to you openly in the sight of all Israel.'"
Do tell Clete, who is the 'I' speaking of in this passage? :think:
Try another translation, especially the Hebrew version. "Cause" in your mind might be different than the Hebrew understanding. Take off your Calvinistic glasses. The rest of Scripture is explicit that God does not cause or coerce moral evil. This originates in the heart of man. If he does not stop someone from commiting adultery, it does not mean He is responsible or causing the sin.
The Open View does not reconcile Calvinistic predestination with libertarian freedom. These ideas are mutually exclusive. What it does is flesh out a biblical view of what predestination is and what free will entails.
Sovereignty and predestination are not to be understood as meticulous control and determinism. Free will is not illusory.
I am not sure what you are nit picking about, but I am not saying the Open View reconciles incompatible ideas. I am saying it properly understands that God predestines some things, but not all things (2 motifs with two different sets of verses). No one verse puts it in these words, but the concept can be extracted from biblical evidence. This is not manmade theology, but systematic and biblical theology.
Z Man
New member
The only God you believe in is the one you made up. To keep Him alive, you have to 're-write' Scripture so that it conforms to your view of Him. I'm not wearing any 'glasses' at all. Anyone who understands English will get the gest of this text. It's you who is wearing the glasses. You are the one who continues to believe in a God contrary to what is explicitly told to us through Scripture.
To clear things up, no one is saying that God 'forces' people to sin. Get that 'strawman' out of your thick heads now...
If I would just read the Plot, you could accuse me of getting my understanding from man (Enyart). If I just read a critique, then I am also influenced by man. If I just read the Bible (like millions of others) and never come to a Mid-Acts understanding, then I will be told I need a man to show me the teaching in the Bible. If I do the right thing and objectively look at Enyart's writings, a critique, and the Bible first and foremost, then the Bible has no weight since I read "The Plot" or a one page critique.
Every time you use a Bible tool, is that a reliance on man and not the Word or Spirit? Did Jesus learn Hebrew and Aramaic at some point? Did Paul speak Greek and know Judaism at birth?
The Mid-Acts position is not self-evident, and it is not just because many people have been taughy a different view. I see Pentecostal distinctives and Open Theism in Scripture without any manmade influences. I will need 'The Plot' and its hundreds of pages to systematically convince me. As I look up his references in the footnotes, there are contextual, grammitical, and translation issues. All his arguments are not strong nor does the proof texting help. I read the Plot with the Bible and dig in. Apart from one short article, I am not aware of critiques against it. If the critiques argue from sound exegesis and refute certain points, then that is just as valid as Enyart using various arguments and verses to support his view.
Ten people can prayerfully read certain verses or passages and come away with various conflicting understanding. Often the issue is resolved by checking a more accurate translation or the original languages. This is rightly dividing the Word, studying to show yourself a workman approved, not leaning on traditions. It is the opposite if one does due diligence.
If I do not answer every point of yours, it is because you are quick to label and judge and I am content to skim long posts without an obligation to defend every point over and over. I will always clarify if there is misunderstanding, but I will not continually defend my salvation from sozo's attacks, for example. Some people have their minds made up and do not want to know the actual facts.
To be honest, I have not looked closely at your verse. I do know it does not contradict the explicit revelation of God's holy character and ways. If determinism makes God responsible for heinous evil and immorality, then it is a view contrary to His revelation. There is a better explanation of proof texts (cf. the difference between moral evil and KJV 'evil' referring to natural disasters in judgments).