Originally posted by Hilston
This is obfuscation. All that was required of me was to show that the accusation was false, which I did, and that you and Knight conveniently operate according to a double standard. Which has also been done. Perhaps I wax eloquent on occasion. Sue me.
I couldn't have cared less about the accusation; I was concerned about debating the issues that you brought up about what Open Theism teaches. The Slick Jimmy remark was intended to be funny. You need to lighten up.
Good grief, Clete, what issues?
What do you mean what issues? I went through and answered your questions one by one, didn't I?
The issue was Knight's accusation of misrepresentation and your knee-jerk response ("I'm not Knight but I can't resist!") which completely belied his claim (how embarrassing!). The issue is that I was falsely accused of misrepresentation, which was addressed and soundly refuted, whether you like it or not.
I wasn't even addressing the issue of your hurt feelings, Jim. The accusation arose out of your playing games in the first place. If you would establish your points as you make them then such accusations would not be as easily forthcoming. Your own style of debate invites people to blow you off.
What issues? I was accused of being unfriendly and "unchristian" because of misrepresentation. That's the issue.
Want some cheese with that, Jim?
You really need to get over yourself. We are all here to debate theology; if you don't want to debate things then don't bring them up. Simple as that.
What else do you expect me to answer?
How about the substance of my post? You asked questions and I answered them. Respond to my answers, that's all. Isn't that how debates are supposed to work?
It's perfectly fitting that I was interested in proving that I did not misrepresent the Open View. And not only did I defend myself against the accusation, I showed how you guys conveniently employ a double standard when it comes to the "unchristian" and "unfriendly" act of misrepresentation.
The difference is Jim, that when we misrepresent something the way you do, we don't say that we didn't. We understand the use of rhetoric and the impact of an emotional argument.
For example, when I say that Calvinists make God out to be the author of evil, I know that they themselves not only do not say such things but also do not consciously believe it. Nevertheless, that is the conclusion that their theology logically leads too whether they are aware of it or not.
The difference is that when someone accuses me of attacking a straw man I don't start whining about double standards, I just prove what i've said is true (or at least I make an argument anyway). And that's exactly what you should have done. That's exactly what Knight would have wanted you or anyone else to do as well.
Are you insane? I just showed how you and Knight agree with my characterization. Re-read my post. How convenient for you to obfuscate in this way.
Can you not read? I swear it's as if you are on another planet or something! I explained very clearly how I DO NOT AGREE with you characterization.
It's a heckuva lot easier than actually addressing what I wrote, isn't it?
Which is black, the pot or the kettle, Jim?
I've stated my position directly myriad times on TOL. It's not my problem that you and Knight and the rest of your cohorts have selective memories, Knight's recent and convenient lapse regarding anthro-figures being the latest example.
Okay Jim, I know you must know this already but I'll walk you through this anyway (it's a short trip).
You are on a public debate forum. What you and one other participant may or may not have discussed on the phone is of exactly zero value in such a venue. Further, points or counter points that you may or may not have made on completely separate threads are perhaps findable, but who wants to do all that? If you want to make a similar point to one you've made in the past and don't want to reestablish that point then either don't make the point or link or repost what you said about in the past yourself. It is not laziness on my part if you are too lazy to copy and paste something you said before, and I can assure you that I, for one, have no interest in memorizing your theology, or the arguments used to support that theology.
Now, with that having been said, I understand that not every point has to be fully established every time you make it, especially if the one your conversation with is familiar with your position. However, if you are specifically asked to do so, then to refuse is not only unfriendly but it's down right silly! After all, what are you here for if not to debate the theology you've come to embrace? It just doesn't make any sense!
False. My questions expose your absurdities.
They might be intended to do that, but you never explain yourself or the logic behind the conclusion you claim are so obvious! You just say things and expect people to accept it on the basis of your magnetic personality, I guess! The fact is Jim, people cannot read your mind and that fact has nothing to do with how smart you are or how stupid they are. It is your responsibility to communicate your own point in a manner that those you are communicating with can understand it. If you aren't willing to do that then keep your point to yourself.
I directly answer questions put to me. You somehow refuse to see that.
Again, it is not my responsibility to translate your responses into something coherent. It has been my repeated experience that you answer questions with questions about as often as you don't. You would much rather have someone "figure it out" than for you to explain it to them. Care to attempt to find someone who disagrees with me on that?
Hilston asked: Then what does this verse mean to you?: God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1Ti 2:3b-4)
Universalism? What in the heck are you talking about? Have you lost your ever-loving mind?
:darwinsm:
I told you that I was imitating you Jim! I didn't actually think you were teaching universalism; I just pulled something out of thin air, stated it with no explanation and left you to deal with it by reading my mind. It's not too easy to do, is it?
This is how ridiculous you are. You should already know my view of the verse. It refers to the elect only. Didn't you already know that I'd answer that way? If not, then you're a sloppy thinker, you don't pay attention, you disrespect the debate, and/or you're simply blind.
Excuse me for not having that point come immediately to mind, Jim. Frankly, I find it incredible that you actually think that expecting me to make such a connection is reasonable considering the length of time that has gone by since you an I have discussed that specific issue. Especially when you are as aware as I am of the inherent difficulty you and I have in communicating with one another. Truly, I have never meet anyone like you before in that I'm acutely aware that you are not stupid and that you have worth while things to say and yet it seems impossible to get onto the same page with you long enough to keep from talking past one another. It's unbelievably frustrating.
My question still stands. Since you claim that God does NOT want all men to be saved, please answer the question. What does 1Ti 2:4 mean?
"3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,"
It means just what it says, just what it seems to say by a simply reading of the text.
Hilston wrote: That's what I meant, i.e., on the Open View, He cannot save those who reject Him without violating His stipulated requirements. Once again, Clete agrees with my description, and therefore, there was no misrepresentation.
It has to have been a misrepresentation of one kind or another Jim. You said it as though it was a bad thing to believe and yet you believe it yourself, you must! Even if your theology is correct God doesn't save anyone in violation of His stipulated requirements.
So I made a mistake in not being more clear. Nonetheless, it's what I meant. You can choose to reject my clarification, in which case you will continue to argue with a straw man. But that's nothing new for you guys, so have at it.
But it can't be what you meant! How could you possibly have meant to say something that you agree with as a derogatory remark? It doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm missing something, but I seriously don't get it.
You cast yourself in a negative light, Clete. You don't need my help, except maybe to shine a light on your absurdities. And again, I answer questions directly. All of your complaints to the contrary are obfuscation.
No you don't Jim, I guess in some convoluted way you think you do, but like I said a moment ago, you and I seem to speak a different language, I've never seen anything like it.
Couldn't. Cannot. Can't. Good word. Same word I used. Same thing I meant.
Okay, and the point is?
Why did you ask the question in the first place? Was it pop quiz time or what?
Hilston wrote: Don't you believe that hundreds of people plunge into hell on a daily basis? ... Once again, Clete agrees with my description, and therefore, there was no misrepresentation. Yet Knight accuses me of being unfriendly and unchristian because of misrepresentation. Go figure.
It's not your words that misrepresents our view but the implication that God is somehow weak because He can't make somebody love Him.
What's misleading about it? How come all of a sudden you claim to know what I believe? I thought you said I don't answer questions directly. So how could you know what I believe about this?
Back the truck up. You’re the one who wants me and Knight to remember everything you've ever said and every argument you ever made. Don't get testy when I guess and get it wrong. I don't even think I got it wrong! You do believe that hundreds of people go to Hell each day right? So it’s misleading because you say something as though it is a negative when you affirm it yourself.
The difference between my belief and yours, is that my God will not lose a single soul He loves and has marked for salvation.
Pour the normal meanings of these words back into them and this is a correct statement. In other words, read this statement without the Calvinistic idea of "unconditional election" in your head and suddenly you have Biblical truth.
He isn't the Big Loser that Open Theism makes Him out to be, wishing more people would love Him and believe in Him, but not being able to do anything about it.
Now, I don't care if anything else you've said is a mischaracterization of the Open View or not, this definitely is. Or do you think that I believe God to be a "Big Loser" (capital B, capital L). This is also a terrific example of being unfriendly, but I'm not really concerned about that so much. Not that it's not important, it's just that little jabs like this is what make this forum more fun and more real than any other that I've seen. But call it what it is, it is a mischaracterization, an intentional one at that.
Hilston wrote: Anyone who really wants to know can PM me.
Well I really do want to know, but I am not going to PM you for it.
The topic is hot right here, right now, and I, for one, have never (or at least I do not remember having ever) heard you or anyone who calls the word "repent" a figure of speech explain what the figure means in any way that makes any sense at all. Typically, what most people get from a verse that clearly says that God changed His mind is that He didn't change His mind. It's totally contrary to the obvious meaning of the text. If you think you can do better or differently, than I really do want to hear your argument. If you refuse to make the argument then at least give a link to where you've made it before.
You've got it backward, Clete. You and Knight don't give a rip about what I believe, or what Calvinism actually teaches, or what an anthro-figure really means.
You know what I think? I think that you know that this is not so. I think that you just don't want to debate it. You're more interested in pointing out supposed flaws in Knight’s and my character than in discussing the issue rationally and unemotionally.
If you're all upset by my attempt to read you mind then I recommend not attempting to read mine (or Knight's).
Here's the difference between you and me. When I encounter a new or opposing view, I want to understand it better than those who espouse it. I want to test my own view against it and see if my view needs to change or can be improved. I actually ask myself, "What if I'm wrong and these guys are right?" as I investigate and read everything I can get my hands on. I've read several books on Open Theism. I've read dozens of articles. I've called you guys on the phone. I continue to learn and process the things you guys believe.
I'm not impressed Jim! You know why? Because you not any different than I am at all in this respect. I was nearly kicked out of my own church when I was in sixth grade because I told my Sunday school teacher that he should read his Bible before making himself out to a teacher of it. He was trying to teach me that getting wet had something to do with getting saved and I literally ripped him Biblically apart in about two minutes in his own class. The point is, I'm not concerned with what is popular or what sounds good, I'm concerned with what is the truth. Ever since the specific moment that pin head booted me from his class, I have ALWAYS been of the mind that if you can show me that I am wrong, THEN I will change by position, until then, what you (or anyone) says is only so many words.
I like you, have read and read and read book after book after book, listened to sermon after sermon, teaching after teaching and also like you I have been most impressed by people's near complete lack of understanding of even the simplest of Biblical principles.
The fact is, that your intellectual honesty is precisely the reason why I find our inability to agree on virtually anything so frustrating. In other words, I can tell that we aren't talking past one another because you are trying to be difficult or dishonest. On the contrary, it's perfectly clear that the points you make seem to you to be perfectly obvious as are the points that I make to me. It's clear that we are both interested in determining the genuine truth and yet something just doesn't connect, at the risk of being repetitive, it truly is as frustrating as anything I can think of at the moment.
I only just recently learned that you believe aborted babies go to heaven, but that they can be kicked out of heaven at some later point.
Just to clarify. I believe that babies aren't just poofed into adulthood when they get to heaven, God is not a magician. Babies are real people and while God is capable of just giving them a fully realized personality by fiat, I see no reason to think that He does that and it would seem to go against His normal mode of operation. God tends to let things develop on their own as much as He can and intervenes only when and to the extent that is necessary. Anyway, when these children have matured (by whatever means) to the point that they are accountable then there will eventually come a time when they will have to make a choice. They will choose for themselves whom they will serve. Why anyone who had been raised in the presence of God their whole lives would choose to turn away from Him, I don't know but I believe that the possibility exists. Lucifer had spent who knows how long in the direct presence of God Himself and yet chose to rebel as did a third of the angels with him, so it is clearly possible.
I continue to marvel at the lack of concern about whether or not you actually have a grasp of opposing views. You're more interested in tearing others down, the inaccuracy of your charges notwithstanding, than you are in understanding other viewpoints. You've proven it time and again by your misrepresentations, your repetition of questions that have already been answered, by your refusal to do the heavy lifting to find out for yourselves what opposing views actually espouse. But do I call you "unfriendly" and "unchristian" and lob about manipulative blather about "expecting to be treated as a friend"?
No you don't but you don't explain yourself either. It's not enough to simply say, "That's not an accurate rendering of Calvinist doctrine." and then leave it for everyone to believe or be stupid. You act as if I and Knight are supposed to stop everything and put our whole theology in limbo based on the strength of the simple fact that you've made a claim that we don't know what we are talking about.
What you aught to say is "That is an inaccurate rendering of Calvinist doctrine. A more accurate rendering of the Calvinist position would be such and such because this or that person who is an authority because of this or that qualification said this or that statement concerning this issue which is relevant because etc, etc." It's called fleshing out a point and making an argument. Reading minds doesn't work. If you know something that the rest of us are apparently ignorant of then speak up and teach us something. But if you bring it up it is not up to us to figure out why you are right, it’s up to you to prove your own position. A point with which I know you agree but it just seems that you often forget.
I don't expect to be treated as a friend. The only thing I might expect from you is that you think and to respect the debate. I don't expect that anymore.
I have given you zero reason to rationally make such a statement. I have been a touch on the sarcastic side perhaps but I have not been disrespectful toward you in any way. On the contrary, you are the only one here that I disagree with, that I actively desire responses from. (Z Man had that honor along with you but lost it a few days ago.) That is true precisely because I do respect both you and the debate. There are those here who are playing games and I sometimes like to have some fun with people and play around also, but I think, more so than most, I take this stuff very, very seriously. Ask Z Man if you doubt that this is the case.
As to what wastes everyone's time, I've sufficiently explained my views to you and Knight in other debates, but you can't seem to remember. It's ridiculous. It's ludicrous. It's disrespectful. It's childish. If it weren't so entertaining, it would be a huge waste of time. So let's no longer waste anyone's time. If anyone really wants to know what I believe, they'll PM me. Or they can search the archive.
Well as I said, I have no intention of PMing you for the argument. The issue is on the table right here, right now. Link to a previous post of yours if you like or if you don't even want to do that then I submit that you shouldn't have engaged the discussion in the first place.
Resting in Him,
Clete
